Fs 
¥ 


yO ay 
~~ 
<2 


uP 


a 
» 


. 


marae. wk 


Sc’ 


ie 


a>, 


Hees 
Le) 


o> 


' 


ne 


ea hate 


. BARS; 
ey 
> 


ars 
aK 


is 


e) 


et 


i) 


au 
nt 


Sob se 


+ 
bs 


b, 


LON? 


f 


a 
ve 


* 


Nate 


ihe 


nn 


a 


fab 


iM, 


Sy 


ex 


> 


Thee tts 


he 


wi 


* 
nui 


%, 


, 


‘i 
hb 


Wy 


a NG 


RE, 


SY 


Ri 


a 


Me 


iN 


oe 


ee 
ot ee 


tah 
ee 


pbb obs he 


eyes 


i 


Hab ‘ 


* 


iv 


K pre 
ay 


be 


tet gt 


Fae 


ease 


PLS 
pon 


at 


fob 
ivi 
ci ay 


tb Bory 


es 
rs 


We 
te 


aa 


> 


Nf 


m3 


4 


M5 
r ttt 


CM 


ntyiyiy: 


%* 


iy 


if 


{ 


t 


ty 


rw, 


4 
¥ wht 


ul ee 
re rors Auk 


ine) 
, 
rns ’ 


iy 


a 


a 


: 


4 
f 
(b 


poe 


cy 
ary 


te 


ra 
Ee 


wBy 


iV. 


eA 


Nite tN nye 
Ios oy, A 7, eA 


y 
Pees 
eee 


Ke 


Say oie 


ANSE Ot 


yy 


Ly y om é " y, 
Pet NG: ae ql 4, 
Bi of ry 


SpA be 
ie 
vy 


nen 


4 
oy 


6.4 
A 
ini te 
ee 


ih ay 


ae 


) At f 
ye ay x) 
AES é ue 

¢h vs aA 


POY 
poe 


is 


sh 


§ 


3 


a As 


Ps 


OR 
LNA Ae 
Peses Mas 
A ae yy 4 


iw ‘ 
AA dA A 


i 


ofits 


eg ee Se 
ne pace be 


it <a 


Raet 


> AA Sisto SRA 


aad 
ave 


‘Ss 


A 


nat, ed 
4 Pes 


9 


rs 


4 


rf 


4 


aa 


of i 


Hy 


} 


HAS 
a4 ieee 


eth nee 


Pay of ot 26 08 ty 


4 


3 


vans 


at 
ss 


Vf 





aA 
ba tt AAS 









Yaa oe 1926 


B, Cy 
<oaioas gen 


Division LD | 


‘an W 
Section ft ale, 


» 


ave 


Ne 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/christiantheologOObyru 


Christian Theology 


‘ ae, “od 
ee Ps 


i, Ce 
; he 


1 i) 


Soak Vee 
J Fi ¥. vi Th 
; yea an "1 
ys ir, ' Tint H 
LEC LE DLA 
ny way SRA phn im ay ; 
i Ta 7k i me 
see The 
i Y 
ry 


Of ae 


a aN he 
Wan ics aoe: 
ad 


7) 4 rie a 
tha eA 


] aac tal 
eee | aie bad Cel) ie) a Lp Prey) 
as MI ae ie ane ie iy 
ae OH Lyon) aN Ah me Hi hae Mi 
av he ee ots 


i 


a y 


1 
i .] 
iynet 
cg 


ey ET Pp Ta bal ie fT oa yi Bs AW Ai 


win om | 

ya) ; 

’ Ne of ‘ 

a] ai 

Hea, iy fe. bite i" 

i ue j ah ey i 

y ts Ves ine i 

iil t/ Mi i j 


anise me om 


ma if vies 


} : NE Hay 
oe +4 ; Gt ws 
RO e Aime AMIR 
. oh Ee et i hey 
t an heii ni yy 9 UT, MARES bi A Wey He np A ie 
a ui, i WES PAT EY 0 Fe ony dant 
ahh a bing eh Rae ee 
Mt ae aN toa va hale an it 
eal Py Ii 4 A 
Hey na TAN ate aos ee vy 
> dts i wh ‘ ae if () 
AR OLS Ae i b) hi Hf ns 4, ; 
AGE hi | us . 
hee 
her Lae? 
. ‘ vn 


\ me Ti : 4 
Dita 
bea todo 





S > 

a AN27 192 B 
S 

Lea oaicat sew 


Christian Theology 


A Systematic Statement of 
Christian Doctrine for the Use of 
Theological Students 






By | 
RUSSELL R. VBYRUM 


Professor of Systematic Theology in 
Anderson Bible School and Seminary 
Anderson, Indiana 


Author of Shadows of Good Things, 


Holy Spirit Baptism and the Second Cleansing, 
Scripture Readings and Sermon Outlines, ete. 


GOSPEL TRUMPET COMPANY 
Anderson, Indiana 


Copyright, 1925 
by 
Gospel Trumpet Company 


Printed in United States of America 


PREFACE 


The purpose of this work is to set forth in concise and sys- 
tematic form the evidences, doctrines, and institutions of the 
Christian faith. Much of what is contained in the following 
pages has been given to students in the classroom as lectures 
from year to year and in the form of typewritten outlines which 
I have used in teaching. 

In preparing this work the aim has been to treat the subject 
with such a degree of brevity as is consistent with clearness and 
strength of argument. I have had as my object in writing, the 
production of such a textbook as I should wish to place in the 
hands of students in the classroom beginning the study of sys- 
tematic theology, and also I have sought to adapt the discussion 
to meet the needs of the many ministers who must gain most of 
their knowledge of the subject through individual private study. 
I have also endeavored so to present the subject that even Sun- 
day-school teachers and other laymen who seek to be informed 
in doctrine can, by a thoughtful reading of it, obtain a clearer 
view of Christian truth and a firmer conviction that it is truth. 
Certainly the truths of Christianity were intended for the aver- 
age man as well as for the student and ought to be taught so all 
persons of ordinary intelligence can understand them. With 
this in view I have purposely avoided as much as possible an 
abstract style and technical terms, or when the latter are used 
I have often defined them. The omission of technical terms is 
also in harmony with the tendency of the more recent writers 
on theology, about one of whom it has been said that by him 
‘theology has been freed from the bonds of a scholastic phrase- 
ology and taught to speak again an English pure and undefiled.’’ 

The subjects treated and the order of their treatment are 
such as are commonly found in a work of this kind. A theo- 
logical writer can scarcely hope to say much that has not been 
stated in some of the many works of the past, but with the 
development of thought in each succeeding’ age a restatement 
of the truth is needed. New developments in science and relig- 
ion require a change of emphasis in presenting the truths of 
Christianity. At the present time the tendencies to undue 
religious liberalism must be met by conservative Christian the- 


ology. As the deism of the eighteenth century and the Uni- 
5 


6 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


tarian defection of the last century were successfully met and 
overcome by strongly asserting and vigorously defending with 
sound argument the truths then attacked so it will be in the 
present conflict. And yet while we strive in defense of the gos- 
pel we do so with the happy confidence that truth will win, for 
men can not long deny those great truths that are fundamental 
to the needs of their natures and to their present and eternal 
happiness. 

I have endeavored here to present the truth positively. I 
believe what I have here written, and my convictions grow 
stronger continually with the study and reflection of the pass- 
ing years. I prefer to glory in believing so much rather than 
in believing so little, because God’s blessings are promised to 
those who believe rather than to those who doubt and criticize. 
I have aimed at clearness rather than a flowery style. Inasmuch 
as theology can be comprehended well only by a practical appli- 
cation of its truths to the heart and life, I have freely employed 
the homiletical method in these pages. The attempt to present 
theology abstractly is not only unscientific but uninteresting 
and even sometimes repulsive to the truly devout heart. 

I desire to express appreciation for helpful suggestions for 
the improvement of this work from C. W. Naylor, E. A. Rear- 
don, and F’. G. Smith, who have read it in manuscript form. 
I esteem their judgment highly because of their wide experience 
as practical preachers of the gospel and as writers on religious 
and theological themes. 

With a fervent prayer to Him who is the source of all truth, 
and whose guidance I have constantly sought while writing the 
following pages, that by his blessing the perusal of them may 
be enlightening to their readers, this work is given to the public. 
Anderson Bible School and Seminary, 

Anderson, Indiana, December 6, 1924. 


INTRODUCTORY NOTE 


BY F. G, SMITH 


The very fact that books on religious subjects still form the 
largest part of the literature of the Christian world proves be- 
yond all question the supreme importance of the theme; that it 
does not belong to the dim, distant past, but possesses within it- 
self the germs of immortality. It lives forever. 

Systematic theology, because of the nature of the subject it- 
self, calls for frequent restatement. The religion of the Bible 
embraces in its scope that which is of supreme importance to our 
race. Men everywhere are called upon to accept it. Its doctrines 
relate not only to our origin and final destiny, but they make 
great demands upon us now by impressing the law of account- 
ability upon the conscience. It is the special province of theology 
to make these doctrines and obligations acceptable to the reason. 
But the intellectual demands vary in accordance with the prog- 
ress and thought-movements of the times. Thus change in the 
thought-sentiment of any age may require a change in theological 
emphasis. In other words, the same subject must be stated in a 
different form or approached from a different angle. 

If a work on systematic theology had been written in the early 
part of the fourth century, when the Arian controversy was at 
its height, its author would have given greater attention to the 
doctrine of the divine Trinity than has any writer in subsequent 
ages. In a theology written during the period of the Christo- 
logical controversies the Person of Christ would have come in 
for a more elaborate treatment. About a hundred years ago 
necessitarianism and free will were great topics of theological 
discussion. Every theologian of the time enlarged upon that sub- 
ject, from a conviction either that it was necessary for him to 
argue at length for necessitarianism, or else that since he was free 
he should use his freedom by opposing it. 

It is perhaps natural that every generation should consider 
itself vastly superior to all preceding ones. We now smile when 
we read concerning some of the theological controversies of the 
past. But the problems of that day were very real to the people 
of that day. We should also remember that the law of human 


progress and development is still at work, and some day others 
7 


8 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


who are faced with a different situation from ours will form their 
own estimate of our efforts to meet the problems of our day. 
So it becomes us to be modest. But these problems are real to 
us and we must meet them. 

During the last half-century the work of specialists in geol- 
ogy, paleontology, biology, and other departments of scientific 
research has given rise to a new philosophy of life. This 
philosophy is gradually forcing its way from the institutions of 
higher learning down to our primary schools. It is already hav- 
ing its effect within the department of the church of today, and 
it calls for a fresh examination of the whole problem of theism 
and theology proper—the doctrine of God, creation, sin, divine 
revelation, and the relation of God to the world. This alone is 
sufficient reason for the appearance of another work on theology, 
a work adapted to the particular needs and demands of our time. 

There is also another reason why we need a new treatment of 
the problems of theology. With all due respect to the efforts of 
past theologians, it must be admitted that most of them have 
labored either to create unique systems of theological thought or 
else to defend the particular schools with which they happened 
to be identified. Because of this particular bias it is practically 
impossible to point out a work on systematic theology that we can 
recommend unqualifiedly. We are now learning that no school 
of theology has a monopoly on the truth, but that elements of 
truth are to be found in all of them. We also see that the effort 
to emphasize particular doctrines to the exclusion of others, while 
effective to a certain extent in defending what may be believed 
to be true, is, nevertheless, not a very successful method of find- 
ing the whole truth. It is therefore evident that the only 
correct method in theology must to quite a degree be eclectic in 
character. It must bring together and unite in a systematic 
whole all the scattered principles of truth. 

Another reason for the present work is worthy of particular 
mention. While as already intimated the older standard works 
on systematic theology are, on account of their particular bias, 
now unacceptable for general use, most of the more recent the- 
ologians show higher critical bearings and a tendency to capit- 
ulate to the demands of modern religious liberalism. We can 
not but regard this as a danger-signal. We believe that the 
great mass of Christian worshipers still believe in the substantial 


INTRODUCTORY NOTE 9 


character of historic Christianity and are firmly convinced that 
it has for its foundation eternal truth and verity. It is there- 
fore fitting that a work on Christian doctrine, adjusted to the 
needs of our time, should now appear; a work soundly orthodox, 
committed to fundamental truth: God the supreme ruler of the 
universe; divine creation, the fall, redemption, divine revelation, 
miracles and prophecy, inspiration of the Scriptures; a super- 
human Christ, miraculously begotten, crucified as an appointed 
offering for sin, resurrected from the dead by omnipotent power, 
and exalted to the throne of majesty in the heavens, from whence 
in due time he shall come to earth again, visibly and personally, 
to ‘‘judge the quick and the dead.’’ 

It may be appropriate to say a word also concerning what 
may not properly be expected in any new work on systematic 
theology. In the first place, a great degree of originality as to 
subject-matter should not be looked for. Theology has for ages 
engaged the careful attention of thousands of thoughtful minds. 
It would seem that truth has been approached from almost every 
conceivable angle and that the church has met almost every pos- 
sible kind of heresy. The present-day author is therefore restrict- 
ed, in that he does not have a fresh and original field of inquiry. 
At every turn he meets this sentiment, as succinctly expressed 
by another writer, ‘‘ Whatever is true in theology can not be new: 
and whatever is new can not be true.’’ He is therefore practical- 
ly confined to a restatement of what has already been stated a 
hundred times or more. But as already intimated, there arises 
frequently the actual necessity of theological restatement. Causes 
operating both within the church and outside of it shift the 
points of chief interest and inquiry, and these call for new pre- 
sentations of theological truth adapted to the particular needs 
of each succeeding generation. In meeting this demand, however, 
there may be the newness of additional emphasis and freshness 
in the individual style of presentation. 

In view of the present-day conditions already referred to, 
the author has in this work given particular prominence to 
theism, apologetics, theology proper, and anthropology. It is 
not the ordinary doctrines of the Bible that are now made the 
subject of direct attack; it is rather the very foundations upon 
which the Christian structure rests. Another contributing factor 
may also be noticed. This work was designed primarily for a 


10 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


text-book in the Anderson Bible School and Seminary. The 
author having in mind the general drift today toward modern 
religious liberalism, which subject is not adequately treated in 
other available books on Christian doctrine, has felt the neces- 
sity of a more particular emphasis on the foundation principles 
of the faith. In my opinion this is a fortunate choice, for he has 
thereby made a more valuable contribution to our department of 
theological literature. 

The author is teacher of Systematic Theology in the Anderson 
Bible School and Seminary, Anderson, Ind. The present book 
is the natural outgrowth of his work in that institution. And 
while Christian Theology was designed primarily as a text-book 
for use in his theological classes, it need not and should not be 
restricted to them. My purpose in writing these lines is to 
introduce and commend it to a wider constituency. It is the 
product of patient, conscientious effort and is worthy of the 
eareful consideration of students and of all truth-loving people 
every where. 


it, 


ITI. 


ITI. 


ITT. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION 

Idea and: Contents of. Theology, yar een ian pasbanncssacecsyanapeaess 25 
SRA DIOHTIDLON pie feclecnccete ace Ate xd hy havededraesta es Liar ddcaeecnn dee taheplan maarneacvs 25 
Pe ILOILG1ON AMG) WOOL SVN ita teen Res cats uatlce meres tease steer te teceo, chan 25 
3. Main Divisions of Theological, Sciences -.....2..2.... 2.2 estes eee 25 
4, Other Designating Terms Used with Theology ................... 26 
5. Uses of the Term ‘‘Theology’’ as to Extent -.......................... 27 
Importance and Value of ‘Theology. ........02..........22.c.eccsseeeceeeeeeeees 27 
1. Needed for Clear Conceptions ........................ LO rade Ate TR ge 28 
MenNOCdGd: LOr MELON  CONVICEIONS iscsi ttohoctnacond:ta-cesapsthcosspseiey <1eeruse 28 
3. Needed for Intellectual Satisfaction ..........00..........ccscessseseeeeoeenes 29 
BOUTCOST Of cL UOOLOR yarn recor es eek et ee ads SUES ELC Tn SAE tA ae 30 
TeRINALUTER Aa SOUFCe LOL wm LUCOLOR Viti tyare tee eke accra tee seeaencges Sees 30 
2. Revelation the Source of Theology. 0.2.0.2. cc. llciseesecleeee 31 
DeeurrONCOUsMOUTCES. Of LNEOLO Ty mutt. ewe eats nent ceeytdaceseen evoke ce 32 
Method of Theology 7... rs seers eee cha ta Ute he eh LP 34 
EIN DOC OLS SY SLOTIR ccna teeters eee ers Wey era ce eee an ee 34 
2. Various Methods of Systemization BUEN AM UD FHA A Geet Pe 35 
DemM ELDON Ofis) NISa WOLKME ries ce sacle Us ce ne fied SA 36 
ee AMS APMP ED aegis if Peseta cede 8) AND) CURD SNL ah SOR EEN MOE MOE Ulcer race oP be 37 
Qualifications for the Study of Theology ..............0.000.000 ee 37 
Le SPIT LUals QUAL NCATIONS tree hues ee tee ery RAS 37 
RASHOLICION OS MSN (het eae ce ee avon oe aay Os ty tee Men Sy ea yen 38 
SMAUCALIONA ln QUALNCATION Ay ect deed aeuss seasce clasp ino vaurcdiedneey aes 39 

Part I 
EXISTENCE OF GOD, OR THEISM 
Chapter I 
ORIGIN OF OUR IDEA OF GOD 
The Knowledge of God as an Intuition 000000. 43 
PLN EUILIONS ats CrENCTAL i ee eet ec BN eae Ae eeh ea 7 43 
2. Proofs that the Idea of God Is an Intuition ...........................- 45 
Other Supposed Sources of the Idea 2.0.0.2... 48 
die Brom tA NIMIgtiCw SUPerstleloN yee cscs. eie ites eee ea a ys te 48 
Perluxelusively frome Revelation evel! ei vila eevee ss. 50 
So NTOMER.PTOCESS | OF | HEASODIN Oise ten. ele yet eee 50 
What Does This Intuition Contadm? 22... cece eect cece 51 
Chapter II 
EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 

The First Cause, or Cosmological, Argument ..............0000...000cc000-- 52 
De DOULA Wr OLMORUSALION Ie Meant te eLetters aril tae Le late dull 53 
2. The Universe an Effect ............ Bice Seoscrtn MMe MMe ph eS Me leG 55 
DMA DAL tNOMATOUMONET PLOVGR crite eevee caso os ae silsacnekgcat 56 
The Design, or Teleological, Argument -.....000.....0000000cccccececeeeeeees 56 
LaNaturerote tha eA ronment cnc sone k ae ete Rs ee 56 
2s iividences of i Dosign: In GNALure ahs ess cs cen ct tee clehacenctnetele 59 
3. Objections to the Design Argument ............-..-...::ssseelesssecenseeees 63 
The Human-nature, or Anthropological, Argument. ........................ 65 
ee he vATONMERCM DesCri pedir. ket tee ea SY See yk 65 
Zeargument. trom. Mans) intelligence fakes ie kert nes eee te 66 


11 


12 


IV. 


Ae 


II. 


Il. 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


3. Argument from Man’s Freedom ..........-..-:..cccceecs-esserecencensesesecsssconecs 67 
4, Argument from Man’s Moral Nature ........-..2...-------cseseerseeeeseene nse 67 
5. Argument from Man’s Religious Nature .............-c--ssscccessceeseseseees 68 
6. Objections to the Human-nature Argument ............-.. sassatheaeataiae 68 
he Ontological Argument .320c00 Se ee 69 
1, Statement of the Argument iii 2 2... cn acdasnecencntononrnreneeenes 69 
2. Theistic Value of the Argument -........-1----nectesssscsecteseresseresenen 70 
Chapter IIT 
ANTITHEISTIC THEORIES 
PATTON | soos ocesendesbns oodasonarmedacnsnabaeasete topesgtawereeedhl spell tpith aa tele ena 71 
1. {Sense Of AtHeRSm oo acces peteawasnstantysteenanansanasaeenseerechaiestieeeeanaaane 71 
2. Unreasonableneas ‘of, Ath pis, 21.1. s.cci cis. cassacucennsonstsuinenepeumeee 71 
3. Possibility sof Atheisyns 2 oicg concccescseonseuste=ten>sncenutedeoeetTapase ee nee 72 
POL Gy GHA Say | acess canine aie seanagu caess evenatunn on usbanneall i ita 72 
1, Megning and Origin ‘of) Polytheism® 2252.2. 72 
2. Different Aspects of Polytheismy .........1:..2.i laa 73 
POT GM OL Srna se pancenan oes beso ecceweaevendiles rete fein nie ecg oee eee a Ee fs. 
1. Definition of Pantheism (2.2 ee 73 
2. Monistic,; Aspects of Pantheism (22....22.c.ceeesaesbeee ene 73 
3... Déetects-of Pantheism | .../1..4.4.3).2.50 ee eee 74 
Materia lien iets heareees het eiseebmceeetacta peaks etee tetas eaten cea 74 
1. Antitheistic Character | of  Materialiqniy 3 esece ceeeee 74 
2. Fruitless Attempt to Account for Thought .....................-ss00-s-. 75 
3.) Reasoning from Analogy Defective) ii 2. ain te ee 75 
Naturalistic Evolution’ 2 240071 ie eos eens ater ens ee ene 77 
1. Evolution Hypothesis ..................... Lesa’ Sepa eychtneomncats en fearetan ea 77 
2.. Naturalistic and, Theistic: Bvolution)) 022... -.0..- 4 ee 79 
3. Difficulties of Naturalistie “Evolution (.10.2.22.... 00 81 
Part II 
EVIDENCES OF DIVINE REVELATION, OR APOLOGETICS 
Chapter I 
PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS AND PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCES 
Proposition. to bé Proved ios nee 93 
1, The Question) Btated i282 ek, tars orcs nang eee ee 93 
2. The Incomparable Importance of the Subject ....................... 93 
3. Present-day Task of Apologetics i012. 94 
Nature and Classification of Evidences -......2......2.. 2 ee-ececeeeeees 97 
1..Probable,’ not, Demonstrative, <P roots 2.2) te cease ecee ee 97 
2. Rational and Authenticating Evidences .........0.-..2.-scscssececeseee 98 
3. Main Classes of Positive. Evidencés, .:2.4..)104022 unig 98 
Probability of. a Divine ;Revelation) 2.00. ee 99 
1. Possibility, of; Revelation: 2.2.2 sence nt et eee 99 
2. Necessary as a Standard ‘of Right 21.201.) 99 
5. Necessary for Pardon ols Bit’ oer ic echoes tea ae 100 


IV. 


4. Necessary to the Understanding of Providence and Prayer ....100 
Marks of Divine Revelation to be Expected Characterize the 


Lite g 1 11s. gan Diogenes DL hAeah Rapa eee eae RAE RDS AOR AR RG ES Sd 101 
1, Probable: Contents of Divine; Revelation 4... 2 102 
2. Probable’ Manner of) Divine Revelation (2... 2 ee 102 
3. Probable Attestation of Divine Revelation ......000...00222...--0.2.. 102 

Chapter IT 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 
Genuineness of the New Testament W000... 105 


II. 


ITI. 


IV. 


ET; 


TIL, 


IV. 


“I. 


ITI. 


. CONTENTS 13 


1. Method of Showing Genuineness 105 
2. Genuineness Affirmed by Early Chureh Fathers 106 
3. Genuineness Insured by Carefulness in Determining the 

OPEL TE OND ies eae seed had RG NEE ONAL nk state cdot candela baleen sat oki Be oad ceipe 108 
4, Early Adversaries Never Denied Genuineness ........................ 110 
Integrity of the New Testament —..2..20......... occ elects ceteceeeenen es HY 
1, Evidence from Ancient Manuscripts ............-.2...2--:0+---ceccecsceeececceenees iit 
2. Corroboration of Ancient Versions and Quotations ................ 112 
Bren OF a Material Chan vei POSSEDIO Mca ccs ped sok cesenteveccesatlovcue beast cord 113 
Credibility of the New Testament History —.......00..0000. aia is 
Credibility of the Gospel History Accepted by Those Familiar 

MPLS na iT es We chy ¢ Fe Tyg Seeley PEL dg pabeay Pa Ne Meme ayy. MOIR mal 114 
2. The Writers Possessed the Requisites for Credibility .......... 115 
IVLINACIOS Wer noe we Naren et set Ne MM Tatoo asks th edta tise tsteseellttospurie Massee dese 116 
1. Possibility and Probability of Miracles -................----eescscensseeee 117 
2. Possibility of Proving Miracles by Testimony ........................ 118 
Geel rvOOLs mihae pMaracles mOCCUrred ic ttua. wales ped nct ebay see 120 
4,7 Proof or the Resurrection, Of; @hrist)) oh 2.52030, ate ece ditese ae 125 
Sratrvad ential WV ale LoL () Miracles 22, b..cecc9- fvscpstecestyectissteswscdere-cabesciooes 127 
TORU CCU mee a rs seein. mee ee este Reese eS PLUM MN Tome Ute aha seg Oe 129 
1. Nature of the Argument from Fulfilled Prophecy ................ 129 
2. Objections to the Argument from Prophecy ...........0...0....00...... 132 
SPE TOOICLIONS \CONCOPMIN ENG | el CWS) avcustes cleo sctsddsh ces aebieeeneonesebetnngs 134 
Ao Ped IGtiONS s CONCeT MIMO CHTISE |i et geet ee sckee) eueel 137 

Chapter III 
INTERNAL EVIDENCES 
MOL LOCE FIPOCERAMOS 17520 cee ee peues etree Ashes ade t on Buoys chctamnan censor sn oe 141 
PPGOds st Being aande ALUTLUILOS pice may Welle. ut rie 141 
2. Man’s Moral Responsibility and Freedom. ................20...:-0.--+-- 142 
MN HAY Be IOOLAVIEY © ODOM (Sieh er cpecee eve, On 1 Eh 142 
Prev BD SS SPIPILU Ali Gy y ANC) IM ULOTCALIDY veces, 0 kv, se2crpcusbatye suges scoeskess =. 143 
Perfect Adaptation :to Man’s Needs... 0.8.2.0. 144 
PUPA LVAtIONe rom, (it aNd DODTAVIbY tau.cste ka kanes keene eager cls.c) 144 
Be SO Ten MON bos AG OOM EOL bands... vtee rn piace. Laude yar ts OC each 145 
PeMIVeBULTOCLLONS GLI, LNG im OU volte crest eur terre ean eh uae aN: 145 
OL LOSe i OLOL AAS Mmti ail tat seees Matte eM vem ne Ont os Soles mia Mees Us 146 
De A OTT OC tm at Ard pO Creek D boi ces ects piercer ra kan ima Nady | ah 146 
2. A Perfect Measurement of Conduct. ............... BR en A BS oh 147 
Date RrLect | ETACEICAIIEV Gh Cin ict ite recent eee ely gesagt) holies ee aS 147 
styler and: Incidental ;AMUslOMs cea iat cr ethene usar yee te tentees ioe =e 147 
RIES OL 20 (NER OCTLDEUT ES mar syaneie Giro. boone SMB eRa! Lois oe 148 
ean vAres Ann LaLeraryn ty Laie mete cena uscise twtr Glebe vesocy 149 
STS TOLIC AIM IUVONLS Sansccrioet ee ree ae en arte Cen cae MUM ean |e 150 
SP PELDOLAB DEAL AL USION SM. te coer OEE ee aie ees Lege 1 151 
Chapter IV 

EXPERIMENTAL AND COLLATERAL EVIDENCES 
Evidences from Christian Experfence ....000..000.0.0000200.cccceceeeeeeeeeeee 153 
DW INALUTEROL VX POTUIMeNtaL) He VIGENCOR Cy. Nuiei scat wate lven-cdversectenlodpaeccese 153 
2. Effects of Christian Experience in Consciousness ............------------ 155 
3. Effects of Christian Experience on Character ....................-.- 156 
4, Effects of Christianity at the Hour of Death ........................ 159 
Effects; of: Christianity, on Soclety ie ne 160 
1. Promotion of Universal Brotherhood by the Gospel ................ 161 
2. Domestic Relations Sanctified by the Gospel ......4..........-..... 162 
Rapid Spread of Christianity in Its Beginning —...........0000000...... 163 


1. Hindranees to the Spread of Christianity, -.......-.2....000000.... 162 


14 


ITI. 


LV: 


II. 


ITI. 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


2. Natural Inadequacy of the Means Employed ..............-.....+.- 164 
3. Rapidity of the Spread of Christianity Unparalleled -........... 165 

Chapter V 

INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES 

Fact and Nature of Inspiration of Scripture ...................................- 167 
LPP rOOL OL 2 Ls 1 rAti on: |). ctodecets streets seeepetmenys atid snare tose ea ae 167 
> Various ylneories of , Inspiration ay .tc.t oi, eee ccccewaseae ee ee 167 
3, Lroe, Nature) of Inspiration |) o0-h oy eee 169 
Objections to Inspiration of Scripture from Aglaged Hrrors. a5 172 
NBap SRE roy g Est: SGN Cog tt go Pe RR LEGON pM era CS L735 
PO ABGLSTL GALLO TUE TORS clo Voce ce ee eee ee ELS GL a eh ey 174 
SCM Orel icdGrrore eee ee Ee Ee 2 175 
Ae GONCEACICELOTUS rice ao a ae 176 

Part Ill 

NATURE AND WORKS OF GOD, OR THEOLOGY PROPER 
Chapter I 
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 

Possibility of Kuowledge of God 2..000.0.0.... 2. 179 
1. (God \as. an Object of Knowledge ont. foci ceterdnsnctaseeseceneteenes 179 
2, Extent of. Men’s* Knowledge of God) 222. e tector 180 
3; How God) May (Be \Kmnowny 2.5. 2.c li i eestaceanenceenaaene 180 
Nature and Classification of God’s Attributes -......0000..200.00000..... 181 
1. Relation of God’s Attributes to His Essence .......................2.... 182 
ZarClassification, of Attributed jtovic2.csiececieee- se etcetera 183 
Metaphysical or Non-Ethical Attributes 2000000000000 183 
TcOmity oni God tc.c ai et eae ne ent cage cee 183 
Se Spirituality or (God | 14... 05 ence ho iaaie ee ues se 184 
So ;immutability tot God cocicp cet sece i casetentscnstcttvescctuns Cenecres aca ana 186 
4. LIGternityn Of «Gods ie ea ese eae ee eee e ates ee 186 
5, Omnipotenes,” Of | God? iil itihe ssc Wace saceeuceceen ne sone sca oe eae 187 
6./ Omnipresence* Of); God | kisses eis eens a a eceees en 189 
7) Omniscience’ of ‘God ee eee eee 190 
Moral “Attributes 2c oe 193 
1. Holiness e562 ee a ee oo occhs cca 194 
Dye a) USEICG) acc cdec koe hese taba ncn beeak eoech cn obese cewek oecaehdetcecane ete ee 196 
8B. Dove ine ee ae ae Ay 2 9) 1 198 
A, Mercy eA eee eas oa esa echoes 202 
5 Maes Wg) 1 ds Reet eee LU ee itcheste Mh ye, MME beh 203 

Chapter II 

THE DIVINE TRINITY 

The Doctrine of the -Trinity (ot. ee ee 206 
1. ‘Biblical Hiements - of. the ¢Doctrine:.....4....... eee 206 
2. The Doctrine in Early Church Symbols ...W..2.2.........ecccsceceenceees 207 
3. The Doctrine: Stated: cin eS ee eee 210 
4, Mystery of “the-)Trinity.3 2 eke 211 
Bible Proofsi.of- the |: Doctrine)2 A eee 212 
1: The Baptismal) Formula ccc ee os ee ee 213 
2. ‘Paul a) Benediehon yi. kt Bee ed eS ee 213 
3) Other General ‘Trinitanian Téxtat 2:2 ee a eee 214 
The Divinity ‘of :Clirist fife es ey eet eee ee 215 
Li Divinee Titles of : Christ viene es eee es eke 216 
2. Divine zA tiriputes of Christin otic eee te ek aes ee eee 219 
S..Davine (Works. of Christy inc5 cle eee ee 0 es 222 
£57 DE TW OFSIN |. OL VAIO TISL® i sanrdua® tacarhpssinsetonncuanobccoecstactdene eee 223 


LV: 


LL: 


III. 


IV. 


It: 


(TI. 


IV. 


IT. 


Conscience 


ee ee eee ee eee eee ee er eee eee eee 


CONTENTS 15 
The Personality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit —......000000000... 225 
TIP POrSONSIALY HONG GHANA DITIEs acca u mist asecyyrtendtcanaud cicleeuses ei 0btednduvconwaseeas 225 
PW ATVINILY OL MEO LLOLY HO DEL II Lie inediternlinensusetatternmenndeseceyseseynesntecan ince: 227 
BeEE POGESSAGTIO Li CELLET LI creel oe eer ass seus eeratecl estas inelanasemresacdates 228 

Chapter III 

THE WORKS OF GOD 

God's (WOrk In (Creator et CO ere ee moa de Le 231 
ee VLALLOT Created: OUGHT OE) MNOUIIIGE Y senso nlevba tests caacet te auetad vase catseneie os 232 
2. Creative Work Not Necessary to God | uc... te secemececwscoeeesens ----234 
BAHT Ha GONes1s MECOLG WV ELISCOTICAL hele se! bot acta age ree nL Er ereu Ree sass 235 
45 Création Days ands Geologic "Periods! 2. ise resliecenstlsenteeth-cenecsmeaeete 237 
Se Agrecment, OL Moses Wand) SCIONGGI 1... cscqcersntnrresdnctenrapeccntanernceeesencd 241 
Creation Alas fe VOLUGLON fie tonsa ter er ecient Maen Ne Me MLG ga) 244 
1 Byolution not) Gods si Method 02; Creation ce ee eeu 244 
2. Evolution and the Scriptures Irreconcilable ....................--sccsceses 245 
3. Facts Reconcilable with Progressive Creation ................2.--.+:+ 248 
4 Op ections ton they WivOlUution yr. WCOT Yess ss ceo sseee toe cueten ce 250 
God? sea W ork) in A Providen Ge eee eee ee ee ea 253 
GWEN ALUTA PGE TOVICENCO ree en ee di pou earns enneeL ae BUM SAL RRC Rete a ge 254 
Pa mupermatorale PrOVidGnee Uno ts Mule A Less eanedt ssc debe Cie nu ee bien meee < 257 
DTT RE EL? ata BRE A eV NOURI Spy ogee 89 oh UE IR AUT. ee MN eg A 262 
Dy exastencan ance Na cure rv Oli Ad OCIS rtm ss oun desc eda caster n iets 262 
Led ERaraTe Bs Watered Fath apseomyenened RAM ET ile peat JED ttl Alte PMN ATL BASIE UM, sl IE A 264 
ate aL e The we ioe ED Aie nai ernps Meee me mebTD id LER MTEL A UAE CA UAB ol am 265 
A eLCTHON-b OSSOSSIOT ge Vert ta ee see ELEC ace Leia we ame cg yee 268 

Part IV 

THE DOCTRINE OF MAN, OR ANTHROPOLOGY 
Chapter I 
ORIGIN AND NATURE OF MAN 

TUNIC OF ThOy RACE eu RUN IU Cues nna ee Luisi lal CRO 274 
AMMA TVCLC ULV OL) LOG LeACC WU ue tae teal gey Ge cull Ute kd sedm aknin etic, 274 
2. eroblem) ort) Race Distinctions and) Unity eine 277 
UPL NY RIOLOICA MT ATO UNE Miley) Mager ctl sete es ermine eeu UL eens 279 
4. Psychological Argument .........---.----ssecsssssssecseeseessesseeecenssenenecsenenees 281 
DREN UO CICA ATS UIE Gis lec Comes MUL NIM MLee HEA eun EL nyo MK RS ROU SUI 281 
DA LOLICHIOIA TOTUINGR bias serth eeetea Ary cement nr Na anaae ue LACT Lg eee Sunny 282 
Constituent Factors in Man’s Nature 2....00.02.0200.c....seec cece 283 
iby DOAVEBES OFey sich ark g uh a Copeii ce ¥G IPAS bes Wei baclerap salute SON. OCU ere CAA UN SR DNL VUES 283 
Pee Dane DGOLYn Ole L TICDOLOMLY Wire ome day Witney dec uet UO RMS A ULB 285 
SleLLOWsM Al SISiOUDEIIOTA FO) TNE TUCEIS ee tee ea setae roe nek. 288 
Phe Omeiny Ot Suis yea LUA TOR OM NaN ANS NEL AIBN), 290 
IL NCOKY FOL ER TCCSISLON CONC et OUna ane niet eo icLee UAVS I VN ae 290 
EEL DOOT VE OL) GLOALAODISUT RG gett eer eee ote ULE ne Mee SU UNL HUY UIE! 8) 291 
Sel HCOTY? OL WL TACUCIATIIOM Bem e Uris uch ne Meet eon, 1 UREN Sa) 292 
The; Question of .LmmMo4rtality, yo a ee Nae i ua ey Ne 293 
Ley aT ee DOC V A CLCALCC ML ONtal une te stsue et une ee VIN SSS yc. 293 
Dee DONO NAL BP LI MOnEa Lettie wate te alia MuNViOlOo Uae Le aumieyere Agia 295 

Chapter II 

ORIGINAL MORAL NATURE AND STATE OF MAN 

Primitive: Man! Ofjaelotty Grades ivr acon eu Ta es. 296 
Ta Consbitntion) Relatively (hOreeetr de ueNes yt et ea phae seis ict fete as 296 
EPREIN OL aL SATO LIST wean irae tue De eee OU Paty Am rE TaN eS 2s FI vita gi 298 
SL eENe DTVINGOPRIMAS Ei cules ek ods ee ene Lodi ny SUS Oa Te 299 


16 


ITI. 


IV. 


II. 


III. 


(If. 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


LP hey Discriminating) Mane tom |, 2... cccscckesseneitdebovssctcsownanoeeren anaes 301 
By MUETITVULETV. d OWE) Sass eae a Bret ted kt ln aroha nae 302 
BUAHOLTIDUbLYS WA BDOCE  .<..hoscane he notte feds coast togaatonenabenniicebaneneaeees 304 
Aap ys) sah WR A) a OSE Ne gM ERP Ao Lie DPE fas a Ad SO BEd ED Hud FLL aA PRP Aer oy Sk 305 
1. The Question of Freedom Vital to UHOOL Og 9) os cain smeeseoenone 305 
2. Leading Theories of the Will ................--c.sesccsee- BO SERI RRMA 306 
BORE POOLS WHOL MUNTOG. VW ALL: occlu te data cesar ent cubcapoceonete decthois SAUnOtaEE eae a elena 308 
4. Objections to Free Will Answered ...........--c.--ccssecsse-ssseceeeeesm——- ne BUD 
BT EOD SET OOCLOLIT: aieseenncsecocs-cnpronceeesson ceed ouieeatdseab Gu teed onan sees salenbtees cet eae 312 
Original  Bighteo0nsness : )...2: eA Rs aah al eee eee eee 313 
1. Nature of Original Righteousness -.......-....-...---escssecncsesesensceseeseereaes 313 
2, roofs of Original Righteousness, iii... adarenensten sae inst pernier nee 315 
Chapter III 
FALL AND DEPRAVITY OF THE RACE 
Original | Probation Obie Oa 317 
1. Probation Requisite for Moral Excellence ................-.c-cccccssscsoees 317 
2..Positive Probationary Law Given) Gi). Scie see 318 
3. No! Injustice; in Adam’s'\Probation 1c ee 319 
Origin and ‘Nature of) Sin (cre 6 oo ce 319 
dai Nature of the: Purst) Temptation: 20ers ae onsen 319 
2) Manso Mall and | Lts -iitectsu ce, occa ceed aera ee 322 
Be NADUTE | OL, SSID) VAL eek Les eee anette ab ants betes setae oolaeseamres Dereon 323 
4.) Sin Not, @aDivine SMLAthod joc st-c ow see a ecatee testes eres eee ..325 
Nature of) Orioinal Sin ieee eae a 326 
1: Sense of) thei! Term | eae oe reac idee sae tenes ce eee 326 
2, A Derangement, of ithe Moral Natore) 22. ee 327 
Si: 9Ay Loss of the “Holy (Spirits, scecicseo cesatesscctcsecn eases een ee 330 
4, A’ Bent: to Sin a Result of Depravity  ....00)ccc 330 
Pxvent of; Native, Depravity, eit. pp nce dat eae ee eee 331 
1 The Question: of Total :Depravity,) ee ee 331 
Ay Degrees: Of Depravityh J. .cccactelonasterateccetadercnt ctearenetscesi se eeckess oe eee 332 
Proofs of; Native ‘Depravity co te 333 
1.) Expresaly, (‘Taught in! ther Bible oie Cac 333 
ae early implied Tin ithe scrip tures sccet-ccte ccs eee tee 334 
3. Ground for the Need of Regeneration 2.1... c.tclcil lessees 335 
4. Universality) of | Simmimg yl. ct ttc.cocctscevcneccs-ceeeepnen = ocheteceeeee teeta ame 336 
5.) Sinning in’ Spite jor Restraints c0..4. 2c tice tee 337 
6.A . Natural) Tendency itor Sin toe ie ee ee 338 
Chapter IV 
MODE OF TRANSMISSION OF ORIGINAL SIN 
Theories of Original) Sin 300 ee 339 
Dy Pelagians | TRO y oe nccseareet trem nr ieee rca ese rciie a tee eee ae ea 339 
BD, Augustinian \DAGOry sii ctstarescateenecce dares teateses tase Lamm ae en 340 
a: Arminian\ Theory (icec kee Cee Oe ee eh eee oe 341 
Unscriptural Theories of the Transmission of Original Sin ........ 342 
ef ORLISTAC CO yee eee eee ahae ceetus dees a ted rete ene, ke 343 
a. OPTesenta tive), TROOTY | yi csslleeecessmenernnter satan eeeets steeteeee nea 347 
Law of Genetic Transmission oo os i i ee ee 349 
DS PERG CRISES ere sd hace beeen Caines eat eer 350 
2, Men Are! Atter) Their (Kind Morally 04.1 e essen eae 350 
Part V 
SALVATION THROUGH CHRIST OR SOTERIOLOGY 
Chapter I 


THE PERSON OF CHRIST 
The Doctrine and Its Statement 


dA bs 


ae, 


IV. 


a1 


IIT. 


EV 


rf, 


CONTENTS 17 


AAA LUAT RS DIOCELIN Gd ees iorecndc ct arene eee ot betes eles Meo tecessccedadecees eaesl 355 
Da peMeENntSLOL CRO WOGLTING 4.48 nee tee er eet ee 538 oo ee 356 
BACT OOKLA Ls iFy OR COTLOTILH Min Cale a corte sect Nety ok cies codace cece biep sdeoivecebecsstusicwece 356 
‘Two Natures in Christ _....... Meals JAS a EW, 18 flea Py hce air Bo a te NOR) OE 358 
PpCompiere Human tN ature 11, OHPISG) o2ct2.00 cle sveuberestegeinineraccerntesee 358 
mee compiete Divine) Nature in | Chrigt) nce Ne ieee 359 
SNCaENatone OL MoOd iin | CUTIB ta ns Oe Le ae ree 359 
AP NLOUG ANE veltld City 1 TIGAPELE GTO Aves ta cet pee tes c ys ceeds see ached sees eu taee sedan ia oat ae 361 
Union® of “wor Natures; in} One VPerson: 2. See 362 
LAr ersonals Oneness 4.027) GOTISt eet ce ceee ee ath une et Late Lach 22 362 
BY TS Pig SUE OCU ERTL cous deer, Tenor enc oaed bua ss feaccdetite sit cth othe Ate rceets cwahemcs 364 
3. Effect, of ‘Personal Union. of (E-wo Natures fois... 365 
Criticism . of) ChristologicalFirvrors (00 ee 366 
bet Te ESOT LCR etree ceca tee re een ti ue tener en ee eee Ri oe B66 
Boe On CRTIOSCICH I cereale eee eect tie eet ec etek ee ape ee A eae 366 
Sete ICM PUT Sele erm be eee reese ALE SN NR TEN We EA UNA De a 367 
OB CN ota) Wit Ge Et CGR Ae Gr ele ieysS CEN LORY hal MeL EL ROR LI a 367 
LaSRPAE Bb aT Cae tet ¢ wa ht AY Wis aM A ROTI AoE AL dead De Bai A Ra ta Rl yA Ao 367 
Oh) ARPES ON SY tg sd 0: FOP S) Cotati BVA ELD RDN Aa TELS UNAS Ai PE OR ek eg ot Boalt ola 368 
PPL REMI ZUM OLA GL DCOTY bcos renret ota cepe reget eee dette Sas tiat Sasomueete 368 
ae LG A DOCLIEATI VL MOQY Vaienitesteecap erect telet a cytas case nae sllaU alah leat conk Risks one 369 
Pie eHOs ES OTLO GION DHGOTY sea vacien cases tsar etre anacute Mash esetautbasobeti sound stutanboracs 369 
Chapter II 
RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 
PPrEUMINaAry VG ILCSULOlis nin car cre ee On a Ce ee gs Dee aamieny (dot 371 
DLO POL CITING cece ee ay ere cite Ly cue) aes ee ee 371 
2 PONSS) OF TLECONCTIIATIONN let Cin ca as ee dy a Age ae A 371 
Sy Lhe Pact) otnAtonement! and) the: Doctrines eka eae 372 
Theories of Salvation Without a Reconciliation .......000000000000... 374 
ah Bay aa heey) ef UNE 2 Weak 0d Sieh are Loy sig te ean Ml Du ac PMU a Ninn cai eel ea 374 
By OF RIVONCRS IV UTVING? Ee TOTORALIV Gy seicinsennctnoactececoususohosdtatasachonupucone 375 
Pa ATC OMmOT MEM CDOULATICOSt tect eer trad sui i caus rtycttatanatta tp etaountetddennrn 376 
Biblical Statements Concerning the Atonement Anca ithe ei Abe 377 
i Christ. Died forthe Salvation! ofaien) ics eat ee ee 377 
PPAQUTICES ICO In y OUT aps Peach auc weer teecabreusse acta epee ch cereaath iba eV, 379 
ST UUristwa CGM TOPIGIALO! COG Weg tdekicte he ee oot ee ee ae tec 381 | 
PUTISt: DICURLOmECOOOTIL (IVLOTY ote ane ae od aa een ee, yo 383 
5. Christ Died to Declare God’s Righteousness ..................---cssecsseseeees 385 
Reconciliation in the Old Testament Sacrifices 2.000000. 387 
PaeAMI Male Sacrincenn LY PILy Whisky set eo ett ema d 387 
2. Old Testament Sacrifices. were Expiatory -.-:.2.2...2....c0.-cicecesesecsee- 388 
Elements in the Biblical Doctrine of Reconciliation —.............2..... 390 
ea OC GLY Op AGLCTIOIGS a. tice teen stinee as Ln eed ete Meda udus tebe dedeovaadie sa tases 391 
Bae DNCCeVy Om LEIONTS pte taser AOC ee et Sere 392 


Chapter III 
APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 


Unconditional Benefits of the Atonement .......00 2... 393 
at) VIL AL MARCEL CIC Wisin tm SERN IES uBR et eh sss Teele mS US seces 393 
Deu Oosaibility, of (Universaliealvation i. ie ak te 394. 
3. oalvation tor those: Dyme jin infancy: i 394 
<Low er REQUIBILG) TOT) LOD RELOM nat dl bihs. cess dtntedtecessacenberrebebeceseones 396 
Conditional Benefits of the Atonement .....00.. eee 398 
LoL RATIOLGL LOT L510" CON GALONAIA vrrarntec atte et ee cht ctr anes 398 
Zouspecial .|Providences. hrough Prayer ite a 400 


Da dtl PEO DICSSOCTLCRS Lilt eee eee ee et ea edgawns 400 


18 


ITI. 


IV. 


nie 


inf 


it, 


IV. 


IT. 


{II. 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Universality of the Opportunity for Salvation ~...........00............. 401 
TD RGR PIS E TG CLOF OF WAC EL CaN GD 12 sck. cece cond ecuees Uren castbeciensuebogs coedeatanusanis ane 402 
DO MEMALVEREOTICLS POET OAIL (IM Onn eek ee ere C1 a ea een 403 
2 Lhe. Gospel Is:to | be yPreachedto (AIT ysis pee ecetnalcacrenenncalevtan 404 
AAEGOUIWILIS (CHO ALVEELON SOL MAID csc sree kes be psicendeencntenciteprediessdbebans 404 
PTEGGSCINGATION Yo Et) Ss, Dua eases onda Meee cea ae 406 
DIAL HO NOSLVIDIAGIC | LUMGOTY 2... cn-sccrece ee eet setal 6. Bop Peas escesce ted asercn 406 
SRL LOQEAOTI Sess tocro tec ucccna knees huaccoeacacene ai oname ane nea tet a 1 ate oe phaceaaeisntha eee 408 
Ser Daolute | inal PSPSOVETANGE Coc eisl ie tose in casecnd teclemsee teccuuieestesatesnenae 412 
Human Conditions for, Salvation; iii 2A eaeessce 414 
PCM aith any OUrist vic ee naa) oir oe Se eee ae 414 
gral ROPONTATICS av Ll shcorsenstatetand ne ent lent tee PEER sapien antdel desis ana duessaye tues ssanC nem 416 
SB NOMGUTONGR ere Lie) Ue OE SY Ae Re Cee I ee 417 
Chapter IV 
NATURE OF SALVATION 
Justification 2on Se i AO ee gee vat lee eee a 419 
1 Sense ‘oft the: Terni isch ore es ee ie i ee 419 
2. Forgiveness and Remission Included ...................-csccccscescosecceesses 420 
3.) The Basis > for.t. J Usti fication ence sic cwtcencceccttesseteuceetcceee teary ama 421 
PROS OMOT ATION ori sccc ke eat cetakendaeds iciset bite edies cecenece tte. Ose nerd eee eer 423 
is) The Doctrine (of Regeneration oii swe. cet ee, cadets ck tececeoe patent eae 423 
2. The Ground of the Need of Regeneration .................sscsceccecceeeeoes 425 
3. Nature and Effects: ‘of Regeneration | 02.20.0121... sls csesseasesnesntecee 428 
4. Possibility of), Present) Regeneration tot... cin. pppoeeoeesceeones Goseacnseees 430 
SSOTISINT Dy ee ee NU RUS ee Ue Cae ee 432 
13’ Children of Godie eee ee See A ee ee ee ee ee 432 
2:0 8Gnship Ay do pLtion ster cee rae ct sceet peek om hoe Cheetah cee 432 
3. (HORSE P PUY ASSLT EU a vaeceacensmeacase ae cateu crates ental eave cated tei ds eee ee 432 
Consciousness or Assurance of Salvation —....0..0200000 cece eee eeeeeeee 433 
Lid act o£ ASSarance scot ee Ok Ol cee ae ee ee ae 433 
2 Nature of wAssurance i tceecd scessteseestay es eer ca iLke i ee ee re 434 
3... Witness'0L)-God 76 4S pirityid ore oie dae cc tech eee enna nena 435 
4. /Witness; of: Our (Spirit ie co) oe eerie eect oe cease eee cee ee 437 
5; Assurancevan Relation vito; gon bts) vc sisccscccecosech teneststeennetee 438 
Holiness sof | Life ic 2k Beer eR eee Se | ee cee 440 
LiThe Sense of the Scriptures nics. erstestencsecstsccsascs acct sence eeeeeeaaeeee 440 
2: Detinitive’, Sense! [OL iSin yee ee a ee 442 
3. Causes Leading to a Denial of Holy Living .............2........cccsees 444 
4. ‘Objections Considered) 0). v oye ee ee eee 445 
Chapter V 
ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 
Sense of jSanctification iy: a 8 eee ee ee ee eee 448 
1 Other: Designating Terms (0000.2 cic a scn cee ine ele geen ee 448 
2) No Speeitic .Seriptural) Sense y a0.) ic/oatonsius soca cucvadeetei eee 448 
5. ts *Senceas ‘Hore. Used iti eee ee ee eae ee 449 
Weed «of a Second’ Cleans gee Aa saestecs tac tad oe ee ee 449 
1, Depravity a Ground for Twofold Cleansing .............,..:.::ccscseeeeees 449 
2. Depravity.sin' the ; Regenerated | /.-0.00-226:- sta cede ea ee eee 450 
3. Distinctions Between Regeneration and Sanctification ............... 553 
Proofs ofa. Second Oleansing 7000s ele ee ee ee 454 
1: Sanctification ‘for the» Converted. 2c a ree. 455 
3 panctification ‘for the Church nal ee ea ee 456 
S$. vAn~ Entire: Sanetification > 22s eee ca ee ee eee 457 
4. Coincident with the Holy Spirit Baptism 22.0.0... eeceeeee 457 
5. Two Cleansings in Old Testament Type ...............sccecsesccsecsecceneeees 458 


IV. 


ii 


(II. 


II. 


ITI. 


IV. 


CONTENTS 19 


Naturel of BNtrOr BANChinCatlon Ake eh ce ka lcs 460 
Ley AWN TAE WRU ire ge cig tele lole py ements Ls hath. Laci the AoE Bell oh G8 0) 4k dea Ad OR ly 460 
Pram EHILOCLS) Oli moTLGE AL CH GLO Tis eet ita cca ates treed recta dic etece tee esc socom 461 
Dee Ale GHINILEr VWOOT Rin cver et eet een eee Beeman wee te 462 
Attainment of Sanctification _......0....0.00.0000 HRS Ea ae Oe re 463 
LSA TEAINA Deen: IRM LiL Gelert ee occ need Oe eet oie) te 463 
Be CONGILIONS +1 OF MANCUIIICALIONI. cee ee eee tae ooo eiecetectoosacee ee 464 
ULPABSUTADCO HOLE MAT CUITCALIONIA seer it cia es lene sc len cadcasecteastuewesdecs 465 
Chapter VI 
BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT 
Nature of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit 2.000.000. 466 
TR HGXDTeSSIONA) LE PTesentative prOl Wilby naccicltenssscteessesecvasunea cecusedsasvecces 466 
2. A Definite Experience ............... npoUBLIR GNA TR AI Na dead patie HORI. 4 ele AL 467 
BeMUISNCL  TTOM PRO PEHETALON Ware tank tes cavslnedeeestsdtiaene choi omset 468 
4, Results of the Baptism with the Spirit: ....................sssceeeceoeeeeeeooeees 470 
on One sBaptism bnts Manyabillingainds se eae es 471 
Gifts OF them Spirits ce es sa eee eS Oa Tee ud 473 
MANS LUT ROLE UALISINA Cree ire be te eh tae eed Maal ee see OY edger eee 473 
OEP NOPAGIVOMEALIRGS LOM AIL yics corte Cu teOR ee ee eh Pee WOME yon, cats 474 
3. When Spiritual Gifts May be Received .....................--cccseeceeeeeeees 476 
Lug? Giltrofe Lon cues seas Som OV PDN Vic as Maes Acer Cons ih 476 
i Nature ols New. Lestament. Glossolalia)) aie ee See 477 
vo urpose (OL Speaking ain WON gRes ee eee ee ee cto 478 
3. Post-Apostolic Speaking in Tongues ...................-ccscccocssescceesceseees 480 
4. Not Evidence of the Holy Spirit Baptism ........................se-0+ 482 
5. Proper Attitude Towards Speaking in Tongues .................-...-+-2++ 484 
Chapter VII 
DIVINE PHYSICAL HEALING 
THEAE actor Divine ELOSEN pee RUT Ne Neh eae VR 488 
LR ocripturaly oxampies) 01m Healing 2.) tunes oe ears 1 488 
pat OSUSA DOSLOLIC EH OID OIE errs teg ae ta Ue aut i, CiLan ee Ce ey A. 489 
et ET CSOI UM LUORLIG Yui ccsicea testes uceche nec rort tne Se etc ea an eee luss ceauhe sa Sate 490 
The Reasonableness of Divine Healing ................ Ral ours Reba) Bh, 491 
1, An Aspect of Christ’s Redemptive Work) -).....:..2022.J..c.eccleccteneose 491 
PemmeripLure eTOMIBCOnO Li EPOANIN Se san. teat nee ae aut desk ceva ce nas gS 493 
Got Ne MSVIN GR OMPASSLON ME yet etrttacieumenee eb car has apa WiMe Coad 494 
Nature of Divine Physical Healing 00.01.20... 494 
Py Detnitiony OLmUivine) ELGG te see. ere ee Ce NOME UN SM reco 494 
SECO 6h Er OUse miliny Hea Ie y eer Lee em ny eu ee epee ua Sau eenn | 495 
Be GOds PMebnodrOl Ca ltt Omer ters Mn MeN tea, eMC esea et cence ey 497 
Conditions fora ELealinig ii ee Cierra Va 498 
TOM ALU) OULG ee TAY OTe totes ere eee Pe aU Rn buat uit (tle Me 259 498 
2. Anointing with Oil and Laying on of Hands ...................ssseeeceoes 499 
DMA LINGO LOWAT Cd) ELUIMAR PIOMCOLES Netcool 500 
Objections to: Divine: (Healing (urea ce! Te ead is 502 
1. That It Is Similar to Spiritualistic eatin ois ackenentexctteen 502 
2. That There Are Failures in Divine Healing .....:.............-.........++ 503 
ooelhat. GoduGreated) Herbs tore Medicme i Ue 504 
Part VI 
THE CHURCH, OR ECCLESIOLOGY 
Chapter I 
ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH 
Adem Of athe CO TCH we vee ie eee ey he one Pek |e 507 


TEECNEGT OL TELE OPIi et ere mer reset ee Le NE COIN rai ple Sees It eae 507 


if. 


Lit. 


IV. 


1a 


pay 


III. 


II. 


(II. 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Bene CU niversal Cin trrely i. ssc soceeclsces oct deosste ts decdiree tocsenpeceve tee neenensen 508 
PEE A Re vt Sse e B Ga f an! een Pe ere ONES Bol SUE EE Se Uae peed eng BREA SE. 509 
4, Relation of the Church and God’s Kingdom ..............-:ec--cceseeeees- 509 
THGU ERC) Of eLGRY OTR ATI ZAG ON ie oe scent ceaaeth--oobeer tachment 510 
1) Theories: of the’ Time: of) List Organization: icc eosin 510 
2. The Fact Stated and Implied in the Bible .........-....--....---ceeceseee 512 
3. Figurative Representations of the Church .................c.-ccscessseeeees 513 
Nature 10f7-Tts ;Orsantisa tion, i ees ee gitacktesaaes gic ieyoee capt cna res 513 
1. Different Forms of Church Organization ................--.-cccsscecesseee 513 
2, ohne (Charch *Divinely: Organigedi tans scccsacsiv ub tcthentsemcarennssesieeed 514 
3. The Human Element in Church Organization ..................esse+-- 516 
Organization of Operative Agencies (icicle eecce te resenane 518 
1. Operative Agencies Needed in the Church 2000... .sessecceeses 518 
2. Relation of these Agencies to the Church ~.....20..2...-ceccceceeceseeeees 519 
Chapter II 
GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 
Officers of ‘the Church veg Ur an dis ccu ecceke ts tee eae cee tans epee 521 
Lt Classes jor Oficerm yc. coe es ve Sena tet eee ee ee 521 
Due astors,’orr Bishops ie ices APES IS bmi ann fy Seg NM Ex 4 523 
Beh Deacons ROU Lee cael or ert se aeeta peed serine tee ae: eae eae 526 
Nature of the Government of the Church .......2.......2002-..n...---ecceeeeee 528 
TpnA “Divine ;and vay Human VASNeet io cers c ce te ere 528 
Zi Nature sot Ministerial A Uthority Gec-sce)cecsseeete cco eee are ee 530 
3. Number and Choice of Local Church Officers ...............--sss-cceoe 531 
Chapter III 
APOSTASY AND RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH 
The Apostasy ‘ofthe Church ti 2e co peer Oar ee fee ect 536 
1. Two Aspects of "Apostasy, Predicted (ii eee 536 
2. A Rejection of the Teaching of the Word of God .................... 540 
3. A Rejection of the Rule of the Spirit of God ......................-.- 541 
Sixteenth Century Reformation Partial -......0222000.cc.002cccec ceeneeeneeoeee 544 
J CA Partial Retur to the sbi ble ci ree ae ee 544 
2. | dluman Ecclesiasticism (Continued, <.c:..c-c-.cse--soo-c-cs-ecceeereteseeeeeesee 545 
3.; Protestant; Divistone 12s, Poe ts sree eee cst ckececces eae 546 
A‘. Coniplete;} Restoration: (2 so. ee 548 
iy) Present; ‘Tendency)to: Umity c.08 2c c ace ors as snavdees cet rete eee 548 
2, A Complete Reformation’ Predicted. )—\-.....1 eee 551 
$...A ‘Return to they Seriptures: 220 ee 553 
4, Rejection of Human Eicclesiasticism ..............csccecescessecencceeceeees 554 
Chapter IV 
ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 
Baptism) alee oe ae Se ee ee ee 557 
Le bey, Form, of Baptism oo coc: st aceccu cet ences ee ee 557 
Zu eCts OL) Baptism, Coo cect dsb eee conn 570 
spr MEP OSD, OL, QD TIBI fics dic ited fe uasdale dn senakekd ence ake cet ane me ee 574 
47 he | Masentials' of Baptism 030i eee 575 
The Lord’s; Supper 2005.02 Bs ao ee eee 576 
Ay) AMbristian ‘Ordinance -. ceca caspsecet es saceree eckson ae 576 
2, Method sof: Observance ! 2.2. to) Sega ee ee eee 577 
3.) Purpose Oty the 1) Bap perc .-tksncpreesdtecckeerecamsonneatenee eaten eee 579 
4. (Erroneous iV 16Ws) Oo cie le eee ee 580 
Foot- Waning ig ek Fer ys eet 2 SL 583 
1, Theytnyoneiton Of) Pesus cel hee lca sca ea ee 584 
2. Objections to Foot-Washing Considered ...............2c.-ccccceccceceeees 586 


3. Signiticanes of: oats Wasbin gy... cpa lassepestonescsee eestespe ior eoeeeesen 590 


IT. 


ITI. 


7II. 


IIT. 


CONTENTS 21 


Part VII 
LAST THINGS, OR ESCHATOLOGY 
Chapter I 
THE LIFE AFTER DEATH 

RTUIMNOLCALILY (OT (talon SOUL ips zc bi eect Renae whl olat noatar et oaantcle le banat 595 
EE ILALLONALY Si VLOOD COS [omer anette ee nines ewrtenaciatd oul Soseccbecsducete 595 
eed TLE) CUCIEINIIN OS boCTS DUT ONaet yl spctseeten rsh atnin itodedveesh ons Respeventeetrorenwerts 598 
SB.) Lhoory) OfgConditional Tmmor tality eee eee sess ornsen 601 
TROT INGOTINGOLACO SURUO: cing ere ee cere ee tut ee ee LULL 603 
1; .Question) ofc an’ Intermediate Place). nit et 603 
BHO OG Al GACT OF We VER ALOU isc ssstyes ashe seacrecsessetacaeons<ninninaceentevtdetowstedancs 604 
DeLNO LE Sa SEATON OLE LOD GLON Geer ie al cpt ne ceude rt snmsoseetgetan tier! panginopa ya 605 

Chapter II 

MILLENARIANISM 

Two); Tneories Distingnished: (oii x ee tacdicnsk 608 
APE ORLIN I MORATIO TICINO tetacsecss a eCceme ee ree eee, fetes eee MeaU Pele n 608 
Pee SE Ea get 0 AN Coen Ea ag Be Na Ect ea 9 pe meilleur AAR Le OR die le aa ho 608 
History) Of) Millonarianisnme oo tee ete ae ae ae 610 
TT he) LUGAR AON 84 TOG TC reno eee el aa leek ded ct euseeense 610 
Ze MAllenarianisimn in) Chip ibarly CHUren 2 ois. nec eh ohteetsmvsestsreevececs 611 
BeaMlodern | Premillenarig isms. ce cers eelcctatlencsee eset escs leas costbee eoesedce 612 
Ther Ringdom Of Onristimn rare north t wert ee yer ey oe La 612 
1. Nature of Christ’s Kingdom ...... Rh Nie aB a So bE a tas Sg BP Raa dal 613 
2. Predictions of the Time of Its Establishment ............................ 614 
3. Christ’s Kingdom Established at His First Advent ..................- 616 
Mermenevticr Principles Gee ec Mie UN Le Wee eo Ney a foe 617 
1. Literal or Figurative Interpretation .................... Pichi Nin a 617 
CPATLISLOTIC ALE LIUL OLD COLA CLOU iW eocnieceratesccte fect ue co reas ee ean gig ean, 619 
OV OLALLON C205 b-O Benrscete eet cr eeroo eon renee ING Ut SUR EMR lab pie 620 
ee MUllonarianisrie NOU LAU Gl nace pes ie yethertee ute rl seetaee tesa tece ak 621 
2. Exegesis of Revelation: 20:1-6)) 0.20.0 ASSES 622 
Objections ctor Premillonarianism.s. o00 etl lela ie ee ee 624. 
IEA} OU DLO ROSUTTECLION He era elise cdoig lar mean Ae AREER 624 
DOIN ON TeERCOPALION OF ve CALOIN cst terre ici cea wale Wan i 626 
Sem On Loree Comings Ooty Christi teun teeth ue yh uae 627 
PUN OF GTCA tHE IO ULACLON Cassar ta Ue tec er lL At Cuan cr at se 628 
Dee NOME OFAOMAL A NICO TIAt heer uce eager eye fetes Suk Cw mner eek es 629 
6. No Need, Time, nor Place for Millennium .........2.:...0.2........-+-- 629 
Premillenarians WQuestions yy. an ees A i oat 630 
1. The Earth Full of the Knowledge of the Lord .......................- 630 
2. Universal Peace, Blessings, and Prosperity ................-----:---- 631 

Chapter III 
CHRIST’S SECOND ADVENT AND ITS CONCOMITANTS 
Thexseconas Ooming yor Cnristi hen he ee ei PWecce ee tietal a descews 634 
DEP AUE SARE RCs Mea We BE CUS abet awakes ene ae Rhy DE Cbs Pe ALU NCURSES IO Ree. line detis ane 634 
Ca UN Oa INASUT CR OL Mele CrOTULT Oy Ben eucul a wut e. Mik oa ericson tee TE 634 
Pie RUG pom Ol, FIs gOOMIN Gy nto Che wes uC rn ey enc s 637 
RECON Sr beg oF HC ls BRS L Gs ap cali bebe telat Zt lel AA Joys Nek tell ie bp Lae oS aN 638 
see ONO AL sy PCORULDOODIOR Nd asaya aun cla pee OO tN tanctiacorensesSaacnutnk os, 639 
atheveact0of a General’ Restirrection wae 639 
2. The Nature of the Resurrected Bodies .............2....fi...-....sseseeee--- 640 
DeLee OUOSTION OL LO OMEL EL Vreiet Mich lineata titee eee tye Uarcdm luus eve 642 
THOGr EAN AL oe TOP INOIE Ss Serre te ne we es LS rN Sab r or Aes 643 


Lite ear br Ds ACCT NT Ge ah EL OPN TEE rae a eat once casks tandatocenns hrapiads -ackea onde 643 


22 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


2. Nature of the Final Judgment. .............-..--.:-ccsssseen-s 
BO DgeCt OF vee WIN Al I OMEN G ooo cnaenscondeawnserenccbee 
4, Standards of the Final Judgment ...................-2ceccs-s- 


IV. End of the World 


Chapter IV 
THE FINAL DISPENSATION 


LSE UL GUY Os Abe CLYELB EITIGING ode lacwte ioe Sted oe one MEE acres te ccee fae e 
1 Proots jor sb uture, weunishmentie see ee 
2. Nature vor Future. Ponish merit ie iesteect keene eee 
Oar lace Cor Future Punishments owt tee ceteaeee ee 


II. Future Blessedness 


Index 


1. Truth of the Destruction of the Earth ........................ 
2. Extent of the Destruction of the Earth .................... 


CARO me wee eee OOH eR eR OR eRe eR meee eee ewe eT Rew H EER a ene 


AThe ruth tor “Puture Se DLGSSoc leas Ee eee 
2. "The Place of ‘Future, Blessedness (20222202.0.ciu 
3. The Nature of Future Blessedness ...................0..022.--000 


INTRODUCTION 


7 ee ’ 


mo wih, y 


hi 
ate iM ae We ye is 
7" Oa hey) Pe: 


at, ma ; ‘ 4 i 
rely vi > 
ay rm 
i Da bein 
; j ia: fy a i " nie t% wy 
{ pr wy Miitiae 
re Ll 


ae 7 Ay ; PF f 

‘ oy a Ne 4 “’ Ri 

‘ me aru a 

Punt ete Ms 

a ie Ke ny ahr 

eity ety hs iM 2 
Ny an oy 
oh eA i 


| 


un ake M 


: Ny inh “ 
‘ He , in y, 
a Soha 


Dae 


ny 
i 
i 





Oe Mh) ‘4 i, 1 | ant 
Mette hero mane tare Ce 
Kye 


INTRODUCTION 


I. Idea and Contents of Theology 


1. Definition Theology is the science about God and of the 
relations existing between him and his creation. Such a defini- 
tion is in harmony with the sense of the two Greek terms tedc 
(theos) and Adyos (logos), from which it is formed, and whose 
primary meaning is a discourse about God. It is the science of 
religion, : 

2. Religion and Theology.— Religion is man’s experience with 
the supernatural, with his Creator, and it is so grounded in the 
constitution of man that he is always and everywhere religious. 
Theology is the intellectual aspect of religion. Religion is spir- 
itual experience, and theology is the rationale and explanation 
of it. Religion and theology are related somewhat as are the 
heavenly bodies and astronomy, the earth and geology, and the 
human body and physiology. As the stars and the earth existed 
before man had any knowledge concerning them, so men are 
religious before they formulate theology, and believe instinc- 
tively before they reason. Not alone Christianity, but every 
religion has its theology. Whatever reason the most degraded 
fetish-worshiper has for his religious actions, that is his theol- 
ogy, crude though it may be. And from that degraded form of 
religion all the way up through all the great ethnic religions 
and including Christianity itself, theology, or the intellectual 
aspect of religion, is a necessity of the mind. 

3. Main Divisions of Theological Sciences.—Theology in this 
broad sense is logically and commonly divided into four main 
divisions: (1) Exegetical, (2) Historical, (3) Systematic, and 
(4) Practical. 

(1) Exegetical theology has to do with the interpretation of 
the Scriptures and includes the study of (a) Biblical introduc- 
tion both general and special; (b) exegesis proper, or the inter- 
pretation of the sacred text itself; (c) special departments such 
as prophetical interpretation, typology, and Biblical theology. 
In relation to Christian theology as a whole, the function of 
exegetical theology is to provide the material from which the 
various doctrines are to be constructed. 


(2) Historical theology treats of the development and his- 
25 


26 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


tory of true religion in all past ages and includes (a) the his- 
tory of the Bible, or the record of God’s dealings with men in 
revealing the way of salvation ag set forth in the Scriptures; 
(b) the history of the church, or the record of events relative 
to Christianity; (c) the history of Christian doctrine, which is 
in the truest sense historical theology. This branch of theology 
also provides material that has a bearing upon a proper pre- 
sentation of Christian doctrine. 

(3) Systematic theology, which is next in logical order, is 

Christian doctrine arranged in a system. It is not only a sys- 
tematic arrangement of the various doctrines of Christianity, 
but also a systematic presentation of the various elements of a 
doctrine showing the process of induction by which it is deter- 
mined. It not only decides that logically the doctrine of God 
must precede the doctrine of sin, but it shows the reasons in 
logical order why we believe there is a God and sin, and the 
nature of each. The subdivisions of this main division of the- 
ology will be given later. 

(4) Practical theology has for its foundation systematic the- 
ology, as the latter has its basis in exegetical theology. It has 
to do with the application of theology to the individual life and 
the propagation of it in the world. It is both a science and an 
art. It includes (a) homiletics, or the preparation and delivery 
of sermons; (b) Christian ethics, or Christian duties; (¢) pas- 
toral theology, which includes all other methods and means rela- 
tive to the propagation of the gospel not included in homiletics. 

4, Other Designating Terms Used with Theology.—Theology in 
its generic sense is also used with various other differentiating 
terms. Natural theology is used to designate that body of truths 
which may be learned from nature concerning God’s existence 
and attributes, and concerning man’s moral obligations to; God. 
This knowledge includes not only what men actually learn direct 
and alone from nature without the aid of revelation, but also 
what may be so learned even though the facts are suggested by 
revelation. Many of the deeper truths of Christianity, how- 
ever, can not be known from nature. Natural theology, then, is 
a classification in respect to its source, and is commonly so called 
to distinguish it from revealed theology, or that class of truths 
known to us only by the Scriptures. Revealed theology is also 
designated according to its source. Dogmatic theology is to be 


INTRODUCTION 27 


distinguished from systematic and Biblical in that it usually is 
devoted to the setting forth of the doctrines of a particular 
school of thought or sect. It deals with human creeds as its 
material rather than the Bible, or at least is not limited to the 
Seriptures. Biblical theology is the study of those truths of 
theology furnished us by the Scriptures in the order and accord- 
ing to the method by which they are there given. It recognizes 
the progressive revelation in the Bible. As an example, if the 
Biblical doctrine of sin is to be studied it traces it through the 
various books of the Old Testament, through the sayings of Jesus 
in the Synoptic Gospels, finds what John said about it in his 
Gospel and Epistles, and also traces it in the Epistles of Paul. 
It may thus trace a doctrine through the whole Bible or only 
in a particular portion of it. All true theology is Biblical, but 
in this technical sense of the term a particular aspect of Bibli- 
cal study is described. 

5. Uses of the Term “Theology” as to Extent —The term ‘‘the- 
ology’’ is used in three different senses as to extent: (1) It is 
used in the broad generic sense to include all the various aspects 
of theology and larger divisions of theological science. (2) It 
is used in the restricted sense of the original ground-term to 
designate the study especially about the nature and works of 
God. This is often called ‘‘theology proper’’ and is but one of 
the subdivisions of systematic theology. (3) It is used most 
commonly to designate systematic theology. This is in harmony 
with our first definition and is doubtless the most proper use of 
the term, because the true science about God must describe not 
only God’s nature and works but also all the relations existing 
between him and his works. Then Christian, theology in its 
proper sense is synonymous with systematic Christian doctrine. 


Il. Importance and Value of Theology 


To speak flippantly or contemptuously of theology is to do 
so of ‘‘doctrine,’’ concerning which the apostle Paul admonishes 
Timothy to ‘‘take heed.’’ This erroneous attitude is doubtless 
the result of abuses and error in attempts at theology and espe- 
cially a reflection of that disposition of modern liberalism and 
free-thinking which would reject every divinely given standard 
of truth and exalt human reason instead. The devout and wise 
Christian will beware of such an attitude and also remember 


28 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


that there are not only false theologies or doctrines, but also true 
Christian, theology or doctrines from God. 

1. Needed for Clear Conceptions—The Christian minister or 
teacher especially needs a knowledge of theology. It is his mes- 
sage. He should know what is truth in order that on the one 
hand he may not omit the teaching of important doctrines neces- 
sary to the well-being of his hearers, and on the other that he 
may not add to the truth that which is erroneous. He needs such 
knowledge that his message may be balanced and consistent with 
itself. He must not emphasize one aspect of truth or of Chris- 
tian experience to the excluding or obscuring of other equally 
important truths. The successful preacher must get past that 
mere fragmentary knowledge of truth and attain to a compre- 
hensive grasp of it. The quality of the preacher’s theology 
determines largely what will be the character of his congrega- 
tion as a whole and the individual Christian experience of each 
member. The doctrine preached to and accepted by people is 
the mold in which they are made religiously. It is the faithful 
preaching of sound doctrine that has effected all the creat refor- 
mations of the church. It is also that which will enable the 
church to maintain a high standard of religious life when it is 
once attained. 

2. Needed for Strong Convictions—And not only the teacher 
of religion needs a knowledge of theology, but every one will 
have firmer convictions of truth and be more stable in Christian 
experience if he knows the Christian doctrines as interdependent 
and mutually supporting each other. A bringing together of 
the teaching of Scripture and a careful study in the light of 
Seripture of any of the great fundamental doctrines of Chris- 
tianity can not fail to strengthen faith and enrich one in Chris- 
tian experience. Such study will clear away confusion and 
inspire to more earnest piety and service. It is true that in the 
early stages of such study doubts may arise as the mind is con- 
fronted with problems that were before not supposed to exist; 
but such doubts are not dangerous as they at first seem, but are 
necessary to healthful progress. A blind piety that dare not 
think is certainly not of the enduring nature that can give per- 
manence to Christian character. Neither will theological study 
deaden the affections, as has been wrongly supposed, if it is 
properly pursued. If the truth learned about God and his will 


INTRODUCTION 29 


concerning man is not merely held abstractly but applied to the 
heart and life, it can not fail to make one a better Christian. It 
has been well said that ‘‘the strongest Christians are those who 
have the firmest grasp upon the great doctrines of Christianity,’’ 
and ‘‘the piety that can be injured by the systematic exhibition 
of them must be weak, or mystical, or mistaken.’’ 

3. Needed for Intellectual Satisfaction—Man has not only an 
emotional nature, but also an intellectual nature. God is the 
author of both, and designs that man serve him with both the 
heart and the mind. In fact, one’s emotions are largely con- 
trolled by one’s thinking. 

But the question may be asked: Why a scientific arrange- 
ment of religious truth? Why may we not receive Christian 
truths as they are set forth in the Bible, and save ourselves the 
trouble of theological science? The human mind is constituted 
with an organizing instinct. The normal mind can not rest in 
confusion of known facts, nor endure their apparent contradic- 
tion. The tendency to systematic thinking and arrangement of 
known facts is proportionate to the degree of one’s mental cul- 
ture and capacity. The mind is naturally so constituted that 
it must classify and arrange these facts of which it comes to 
know. God might have given truth in a scientific form instead 
of in historical form as it is set forth to a great extent in the 
Bible, just as he might have provided man food and clothes or 
secular knowledge without human effort. But work is a law of 
life throughout the whole creation. And in religion effort is 
needful, not only for the development of a beautiful Christian 
character, but also in order to an adequate knowledge of things 
divine. In nature, God has furnished facts which men classify 
and systematize and from which, they make inductions of other 
facts and principles which constitute valuable knowledge. The 
starry sky supplies the facts of astronomy, but it was only by 
generalizing from many of those facts carefully gathered that 
the important principle of gravitation was discovered. Like- 
wise, in the Bible and in nature God has furnished us the facts 
of theology. Now he expects us to arrange these facts in logi- 
cal order, and by such arrangement, reconciliation, and compari- 
son to clarify our knowledge of those facts and by processes of 
induction or deduction even to learn other truths. As an ex- 
ample, the Bible furnishes us the facts that the Father is God, 


30 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and that these three are 
not identical, yet that there is but one God. These are the facts. 
Theology places the facts into proper relation to each other, 
and the result is the doctrine of the Divine Trinity. The doc- 
trine of the twofold nature of Christ is likewise a product of 
theology, and was wrought out only after centuries of struggle. 
Still another reason for theology is that God has been pleased 
in the New Testament to supply us with parts of a system of 
theology already worked out, which is reason for believing he 
expects us to work it out still farther. 

As in other fields of knowledge the mind can not be content 
with a multitude of undigested facts, so it is in theology. It 
hag been demonstrated often that only as the mind knows Bible 
truth in logical order can it know really. This is the reason why 
in all ages and among all religious bodies systems of theology 
have been constructed. 


Ill. Sources of Theology 


The materials from which a system of Christian theology is 
constructed may be gathered from any source where they can 
be found. God himself is the ultimate source of theology, as 
the earth is of the facts of the science of geology. The two prin- 
cipal sources are nature and revelation. Nature is a mediate 
source and revelation is an immediate source of theological 
truths. 

1. Nature a Source of Theology.—By nature is meant God’s 
creation in its widest extent. We may learn about God, not 
only from physical nature with all that it includes, but also 
much may be learned of him from the spiritual creation as we 
know it in man’s mental and moral constitution. Not only in 
lower forms of creation, but also and especially in man, who is 
created in God’s image, may much be learned. And, again, the 
divine truth nature reveals to us, includes not only that from man 
regarded objectively, but also those truths that may be known 
through intuition, the logical reason, and the moral nature. The 
character of God may be known in a certain measure by what he 
has made, much as we may know somewhat about a man by the 
work that he does. 

That nature is a proper source of knowledge concerning 
God is also directly stated in the Scriptures. ‘‘The heavens 


INTRODUCTION 31 


declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handi- 
work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night 
sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where 
their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the 
earth, and their words to the end of the world’’ (Psa. 19: 1-4). 
Here the inspired writer asserts that nature teaches men about 
God and that such witness is perpetual though it is not given 
in articulate speech. The apostle Paul not only asserts this 
same fact, but also directs attention to the fact that the clear- 
ness of the revelation of God in nature is such that men’s con- 
sciences are thereby obligated to serve him. ‘‘That which may 
be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it 
unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of 
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that 
are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are 
without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified 
him not as God, neither were thankful’’ (Rom. 1: 19-21). A neg- 
lect of this important source of divine truth is a great loss. While 
revelation is far more important as a source of theology, yet 
the Scriptures are intended not to exclude but to supplement 
the facts we learn from nature. The reversion from nature as 
a source of theology by Watson and others is doubtless due to 
the undue stress on it by the deism, or ‘‘natural religion’’ with 
which they came into conflict. Both deeper love for God and 
a clearer knowledge respecting him is the inevitable consequence 
of a devout contemplation of his works in nature. 

2. Revelation the Source of Theology—However much we may 
study God in nature, yet it is evident that the truth there 
learned is incomplete and insufficient to enable us to serve him 
acceptably. It is here that deism unduly stressed the value of 
natural theology. The history of mankind is evidence enough 
of the insufficiency of the light of nature to show men the way 
to God. It failed to deliver the ancient Gentile world from its 
gross wickedness, and modern heathenism still testifies that even 
with all its elaborate philosophies ‘‘natural religion’’ has failed 
to save the individual or lift up society. Something more is 
needed. 

The manifestation of God in nature needs the illumination 
of a supernatural and immediate revelation. This revelation 
must begin where the natural ends and tell more than can be 


32 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


learned from natural sources. Nature makes known the exist- 
ence of God, but revelation is needed that we may know his 
relations with men and how to serve him acceptably. Sin is a 
fearful fact that is evident in the individual heart and life and 
in the life of the race, but revelation is needed to make known 
the glorious truth of free pardon through the sacrificial suffer- 
ing of a Divine Redeemer. Future retribution and life beyond 
this life is universally recognized because it is an intuition of 
man’s nature, but what comfort can come from such knowledge 
if no divine revelation tells us how to be ready? Such a super- 
natural revelation is needed, and such we have in the Christian 
Seriptures. This divinely attested revelation is the source of 
theology. 

Revelation is not necessarily limited to the Scriptures, as 
both before and since the Scriptures were given God has been 
pleased to reveal himself supernaturally to pious persons. Such 
revelation is desirable and needed under certain circumstances, 
but it is not valuable as material for theology, and because not 
divinely attested to men generally is not properly a source of 
theology except as it harmonizes with and supports the truth 
already revealed in the Scriptures. 

Revelation is to be clearly distinguished from natural the- 
ology, not that its theology is unnatural, but to show that its 
communication is supernatural and direct. Nature and revela- 
tion have appropriately been called ‘‘God’s two great books.”’ 
God is equally the author of both. They are not contradictory, 
but complementary of each other. Nature is first in order of 
time, but revelation is first in importance; and except for the 
reality of the truths of revelation, nature would not be what it 
is. And with revelation, nature is a more fruitful source of 
truth than it could otherwise be. 

3. Erroneous Sources of Theology—The Roman Catholic 
Church holds her traditions, according to the decree of the Coun- 
cil of Trent, to be an equal source of truth or authority with the 
Scriptures. Doubtless in the period of the apostles the tradi- 
tions of these holy men had certain value in this respect; but 
because of the corruption of the church resulting in a consequent 
corruption of the traditions, they certainly are not now, as 
represented by the Pope, a proper source of theology. Neither 
the decrees of the Pope nor those of any other individual or 


INTRODUCTION 33 


company of men representing a body of Christian people are 
proper material for theology. Creeds, symbols, or confessions, 
both ancient and modern, even though such are formulated by 
the concurrence of every member composing a religious body, 
can not be admitted as a source of true Christian theology. 

A second mistaken source of theology is mysticism. Mys- 
ticism claims an immediate insight into truth independent of 
nature or revelation. In relation to religious truth, it professes 
a direct and personal revelation from God. It is doubtless 
Seriptural and in harmony with the facts of the best Christian 
experience to allow such higher communication with God. There 
is a true mysticism that means much to the Christian in spiritual 
illumination and higher experimental knowledge of divine truth. 
But this is not an additional revelation equal to the Scriptures; 
it is usually only an illumination of that already revealed. In 
all the past centuries mysticism has not added any essentially 
new truth to what is known of God through nature and revela- 
tion. That false mysticism which pretends to add to the truths 
of Scripture various ideas, often unscriptural, that ‘‘the Lord 
showed’’ to the mystic, is to be rejected as a source of theology. 

A third mistaken source of theology is rationalism. This 
error is the opposite of mysticism in recognizing too much of 
theology as from man while mysticism recognizes too much as 
coming directly from God. Reason in the broad sense hag an 
important place in receiving and appropriating the facts of 
revelation. But that common modern tendency is wrong which 
would make mere human reasoning in the narrow Sense the ulti- 
mate source of all divine truth, even to the exclusion of the 
truths of Scripture if those truths do not agree with previous 
conclusions of reason. 

Is the inner Christian experience, or Christian conscious- 
ness, a proper source of theology? Every devout Christian 
recognizes the reality of Christian experience. He is aware of 
a remarkable change that took place in his soul at the time he 
accepted Christ and which has continued to be realized more or 
less vividly since that time. May he by a careful study of this 
experience know the essential nature of conversion? Often 
devout persons have accepted their own experience as a source 
of truth and preached it as a standard for all men, measuring 
all others by their own experience. But such standards are as 


34 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


various as the number of those whose experiences they repre- 
sent. Therefore, they can not be a proper source of theology. 
Another class who hold the Christian consciousness or experi- 
ence as a source of theology are those too liberal theologians who 
assume that revelation was originally given only through experi- 
ence, and not in words; that the truths contained in the Scrip- 
tures were originally the result of inner experience only, and 
that consequently truth may as well be learned from Christian 
experience today as a source of theology. 

Doubtless Christian experience is corroborative of the teach- 
ings of revelation, and by such experience one can more clearly 
interpret the Scriptures. If one has experienced regeneration, 
he will more clearly understand the words of the apostle Paul, 
‘‘Tf any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.’’ The Chris- 
tian experience of an individual or of a particular age will 
necessarily modify the conception of theology for that person 
or age, but this does not mean it is a proper source of divine 
truth. It can not be a proper source, because of the variation 
already mentioned. This variation is due to one’s natural tem- 
perament, environment, and to outside influence, and especially 
to the theology he holds. The Mohammedan’s religious experi- 
ence differs much from that of the Buddhist because their beliefs 
differ. Likewise the experiences of the Roman Catholic and 
Protestant are not the same; and as a result of varying belief, 
experience differs between Calvinists and Arminians, and be- 
tween Unitarians and Trinitarians. Even with those holding 
the same general creed, experience varies according to their 
particular individual interpretation of their creed. Evidently, 
therefore, the law of Christian experience is that such experi- 
ence is the result of Christian truth, or the individual concep- 
tion of it, and not its cause; it is the offspring of theology and 
not its source. 

IV. Method of Theology 

1. Need of System.—Experience has furnished abundant 
proof that the truths of religion, like any other branch of knowl- 
edge, can be more clearly grasped by the mind if those truths 
are presented in a logical order. The constitution of the mind 
requires such presentation. Also by such systematie arrange- 
ment of theological facts it is possible to draw out general prin- 
ciples, and by such generalization to increase theological knowl- 


INTRODUCTION 35 


edge. The results gained by such systematization are sufficient 
justification of it. And in view of this the ungrounded objec- 
tions that religion is of the heart and not of the head, or that 
systematization makes for religious bigotry, need not be con- 
sidered. The ancient theologians, including even such able 
writers as Origen, Augustine, and John of Damascus, who is 
commonly represented as the father of systematic theology, 
lacked system in their theological writings. And it is safe to 
say that as a result of this lack of orderly treatment there was 
a corresponding lack of clearness in their theology. 

Two opposite dangers must be avoided in the arrangement of 
theology—oversystematizing on the one extreme, and fragmen- 
tariness on the other. Oversystematizing has been a not uncom- 
mon fault of modern theology and has placed an unnecessary 
burden of repetition and speculation upon it. In an attempt 
to make a perfectly balanced system, writers on the subject have 
yielded too often to the temptation to resort to speculation to 
fill up in their systems the gaps that resulted from a lack of 
revealed truth on certain subjects, such as the nature of the 
Divine Trinity or of events at the second advent of Christ. 
Others in endeavoring to keep away from this danger have fallen 
into the opposite one of treating the subject in a fragmentary 
manner that fails to satisfy the mind and to exhibit many truths 
that may be known. 

2. Various Methods of Systematization—A great variety of 
methods of arrangement have been followed in the treatment of 
theology. The order of presentation of the different parts of 
theology is determined largely by the type of mind of the writer. 
But especially is it determined by the particular aspect of the 
subject to be emphasized. There is nothing in the nature of the 
subject to require oneness of method in systematizing the doc- 
trines of theology. Those who follow the analytic method of 
Calixtus begin with the idea of blessedness, the assumed end of 
all things, and reason to the means of securing it. Others, in- 
cluding Chalmers, begin with sin, man’s disease, and reason to 
the remedy. Others approach the subject from still other 
angles and by other processes. The purpose of many theologians 
of the past and present has been to find one doctrine or principle 
out of which all others may be developed. Doubtless no such 
unity is possible. The inductive, not the deductive, is the true 


36 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


method of theology. Theology must be constructed from the 
various elements to be found in nature and revelation, and 
ean not be deduced from one general principle or doctrine, 
whether that doctrine be Christ, sin, blessedness, or any other. 

3. Method of This Work.—The most common order of treat- 
ment of theology, and the one followed in this work, may be 
properly termed the synthetic method. It consists in bringing to- 
gether the various elements of theology and arranging them into 
a logical whole. This mode of treatment is in conformity with 
the nature of the subject. The order of the larger divisions of 
this work, beginning with God and passing to the consideration 
of events at the final consummation, is not only a logical order, 
but to a considerable extent the chronological one. The order 
of this work is as follows: 

I. Introduction. 
II. Existence of God, or Theism. 
III. Evidences of Divine Revelation, or Apologetics. 
IV. Nature and Works of God, or Theology Proper. 
V. Doctrine of Man, or Anthropology. 
VI. Salvation through Christ, or Soteriology. 

VII. The Church, or Ecclesiology. 

VIII. Last Things, or Eschatology. 

It is probably sufficient as an apology for this division and 
arrangement of the subject that it is clear and logical, and 
designed to give a degree of prominence and emphasis to the 
various leading phases of theology that will be helpful to a com- 
prehensive grasp of it. Also these divisions in this order do 
not vary greatly from that followed by the majority of the most 
respected theological writers of the present day, as shown by 
the following lists of the main divisions of those named. 

Strong: (1) Prolegomena. (2) Existence of God. (3) The 
Scriptures. (4) The Nature, Decrees, and Works of God. (5) 
Anthropology. (6) Soteriology. (7) Eecclesiology. (8) Escha- 
tology. 

Raymond: (1) Apologetics. (2) Theology Proper. (3) An- 
thropology. (4) Soteriology. (5) Eschatology. (6) Ethies. 
(7) Eeclesiology. 

Hodge: (1) Introduction. (2) Theology Proper. (3) An- 
thropology. (4) Soteriology. (5) Eschatology. 

Miley: (1) Theism. (2) Theology. (3) Anthropology. 


INTRODUCTION 37 


(4) Christology. (5) Soteriology. (6) Eschatology. 

Shedd: (1) Theological Introduction. (2) Bibliology. (8) 
Theology. (4) Anthropology. (5) Christology. (6) Soteriol- 
ogy. (7) Eschatology. 

In the present work the results sought seem to require as 
many main divisions as are made of the subject. <A certain 
recent writer strongly criticises the discussion of the divine 
revelation after theism, as is done by Strong, on the ground that 
it logically precedes theology and belongs in the introduction. 
In reply it may be reasoned that it is logical to show there is a 
God before the notion of a revelation from him can be given 
consideration. Certainly the vital importance of the proofs that 
the Seriptures are a divine revelation and the present contro- 
versy' on the question are reason enough for the prominence 
given apologetics here. 

4. Terminology.—Theological writers of the past have been 
much given to the use of technical terms of Greek origin, and 
as a result their works have been forbidding to the uneducated 
person. The leading writers of the present generation, however, 
have, almost without exception, reverted to simple, every-day 
terminology, which is certainly a great gain. Doubtless the 
technical terms have the advantage of definiteness in their favor, 
and are preferable from the strictly scientific viewpoint; but 
the simpler terms are desirable for practical purposes, and the 
practical end of theology must not be lost sight of. The word 
‘‘man’’ is a better term than ‘‘anthropology,’’ and ‘‘salvation’’ 
than ‘‘soteriology.’’ In this work the main divisions are desig- 
nated with simple descriptive terms, and to these are added the 
technical terms to furnish whatever superior definiteness attaches 
to them and to explain and to be explained by the simpler 
designation. 

V. Qualifications for the Study of Theology 

1. Spiritual Qualifications —Probably the most important quali- 
fication for the study; of theology is a pious spirit, even though 
it is not the only one needed. Nothing can take the place of a 
personal experimental acquaintance with God and a sincere de- 
sire to please him. Only to one with such an attitude of heart 
does God reveal his truth. Jesus said, ‘‘If any man will do his 
will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or 
whether I speak of myself.’’ To know the science about God as 


38 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


it ought to be known one must know God himself, and this is 
possible only by experience. A mind unsympathetic toward 
truth can not understand the truth. It is here that the destruc- 
tive critics of the Bible have so commonly failed as experts in 
that in which they assumed to bé authority. Rightly to under- 
stand regeneration one must have been regenerated. To know the 
nature of the Holy Spirit baptism one must have been baptized 
with the Holy Spirit. Not that experience is the source of truth, 
but such experience does mean much for a proper conception of 
that truth revealed in the Scriptures. And especially does one 
need the enlightenment of the Spirit of God. ‘‘For the Spirit 
searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. .. .The things 
of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.”’ 

2. Qualities of Mind—Hvery one may profitably study 
theology, but all are not equally endowed with those native and 
acquired qualities of mind that are especially valuable in such 
study. The successful study of theology requires not only a 
devout heart, but a well-balanced and thoroughly disciplined 
mind. Because theology has to do with the greatest subject in 
the universe, it is deserving of the thought-of the most powerful 
intellects. The student of theology needs mental equilibrium. 
He must be able to reason well, to discern relations clearly, and 
to move accurately from premise to conclusion. Also he needs 
keen insight and careful discrimination. While it is true that 
‘‘the wayfaring men, though fools’’ may experience Christianity, 
yet a keen mind is needed to grasp the deep and sometimes 
abstract things of God. A trained mind is needed, as only such 
a mind can gather together and hold in its grasp many facts at 
once, and suspend judgment in the drawing out of general 
principles until mature consideration of all the elements in each 
is given. Also not only a logical mind is needed but a well- 
developed power of intuition is needed. Certain first truths, such 
as the existence of God or the reality of the future life, can be 
known better by intuition, or the mind’s primitive convictions, 
than by processes of demonstration or logic. 

Other qualities of mind needed are love for truth, sincerity, 
reverence, humility, candor, patience, loyalty to facts, and the 
eourage of one’s convictions. Love for truth will keep one from 
the opposite extremes of conservatism and progress. Extreme 
conservatism makeg much of the ‘‘old paths’’ whether they are 


INTRODUCTION 39 


right or not, and persistently holds to the way in which it happens 
to be even though the Spirit of God is endeavoring to lead into a 
richer and deeper spiritual life than that yet attained. It prizes 
the truth already gained and has the advantage of a settled 
state, but this is done at the expense of progress into a clearer 
light and truth, and also it leads into undesirable dogmatism. 
The extremely progressive attitude is also equally dangerous in 
causing one to cast away tried and tested truths that have been 
bequeathed as a sacred treasure by godly men of the past for 
what seems to be truth but is not. But proper love for truth 
will lead one to seek for greater light and at the same time cause 
him to hold fast all that he has received that is really truth. 

3. Educational Qualifications——A thorough knowledge of the 
Bible is of first importance to the study of Christian theology. 
Biblical theology must precede systematic theology. One must 
first know his Bible as to its contents. This will enable him to 
gather together the various facts of Scripture bearing on a sub- 
ject. Next he must know the meaning of his Bible. If he mis- 
interprets the meaning of the statements of Scripture he will 
probably fail to formulate sound doctrines from them. He 
should also be familiar with the history of Christian doctrine, 
as it has been held in past ages and as it is held by those of his 
own time. Without such knowledge he is liable to commit him- 
self to a theory that has been exploded centuries ago. A famil- 
iarity with the original languages of the Scripture will be found 
of great value in interpreting it. 

Nor will the student of theology find knowledge of secular 
branches amiss. A knowledge of history, philosophy, and human 
nature is valuable. Especially does he need to study physical 
science as well as mental science, as from these modern in- 
fidelity under the cloak of science is attacking Christianity and 
the theologian must be prepared to defend the truth. He 
should also be familiar with the life and spirit of his own times 
if he would successfully refute the current errors and adapt 
his message to those to whom he speaks. This means he must 
not be a recluse, but one who knows the thoughts of the living as 
well as the writings of the dead. To know people one must 
mingle with them. Without such association to give freshness 
to one’s thought one is almost certain to become stagnant and 
abstract in his thinking, 


hy >; 
: Uh 
J AD iA i. J 





PART I 
EXISTENCE OF GOD, OR THEISM 












«4 i 
Yy ¥ ¢ . | rt “ 
f] ra ay 
i ivi rf if, .¥ 
J a", a fe iy : 
a ' ; 
‘ * yy 
? i ve Ya 4 
Fe ah e 
gay AD ut: ial 
ia | 
& ie JV i . 7 ‘Peay sts bY ¥ : ' a , Y : + 
aay : Mf NE BA ee eS Vi ea idee ae eT eh 
i? re use Ve a , ¢ o/ yi r Me ve Ady : : \ Y ( , ys H Vr % , Pee ia 
a lan we aii ; al an iv Web. hy, a $ie 7 


» Ay § ya Pe WAP: ; i a ; y in ‘a 

MVR RNeasy A dl Hien eae ts: hat 

| | o “ee y : 4)! , L i re ; es Ol: mh AS 
} sas ‘A 


x j ' oP. ¢ . 
1 Ue ane 
ae yey , ' 
} b) L 


heh ll A tee Aa ar : 
Ny! Pe, he Ay a et d ‘: My 
ae) De aed : wre he Ph | or 


MANE A Se isanet eR ae 

SU arte aVRE a RNS Un aa 
MRT RGN Taaty 

Te TR a De 





’ lon dee 
tiie wk . fio 
bi ; a ai Us 






PART I 
EXISTENCE OF GOD, OR THEISM 


CHAPTER I 
ORIGIN OF OUR IDEA OF GOD 


The ‘‘existence of God’’ as used here means the existence of 
the Infinite Person, the creator and sustainer of all things, The 
term ‘‘theism’’ is commonly used in this sense and has more 
definite meaning than the expression ‘‘existence of God.’’ By 
the latter expression ig too often meant a pantheistic or other 
conception of God than that which is revealed in the Scriptures, 
and which is characteristic of Christianity. 

Belief in God has been common to men in all ages, nations, 
and conditions of life. It is practically universal. It has been 
and is as widespread as religion, and necessarily so, because it 
is fundamental to religion. There can be no religion in the 
exact sense of the term without the idea of God, even though 
that idea may be much perverted. 

But how came this universal idea of God? If to a particular 
person were proposed the question of how the idea of God first 
came into his mind he would probably be unable to tell. It was 
there from the time of his earliest recollection, though possibly 
not so clear or in a form so highly developed as he later came to 
hold. The most important theories of the origin of the idea of 
God are: (1) that it is an intuition, (2) that it is from reason- 
ing, (3) that it is by an original divine revelation handed down 
by tradition. 

I. The Knowledge of God as an Intuition 

1. Intuitions in General.—By intuitions we mean that sort of 
knowledge that is due to that inherent energy of the mind that 
gives rise to certain thoughts and which is differentiated from 
knowledge gained by instruction from without, by reasoning, or 
by experience. The term is used to designate the source of the 
knowledge as well as the ideas themselves. Intuitions are also 
known as first truths, truths of the primary reason, and innate 
knowledge. Intuitive knowledge is not ideas or knowledge which 


the infant finds himself in conscious possession of at birth, but 
43 


44 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


rather ideas that have their birth in the mind spontaneously 
when the proper conditions occur to give rise to them. ‘‘A first 
truth is a knowledge which, though developed on occasion of 
observation and reflection, is not derived from observation and 
reflection.’’—-A. H. Strong. The mind is so constituted that its 
nature is to recognize certain things as being true without proof 
or instruction. And ‘‘there is nothing surer in psychology than 
the intuitive faculty.’’ 

Intuitions belong to the three departments of (1) the senses, 
(2) the understanding, (3) the moral nature. Common examples 
of them are time, space, substance, causation, moral responsi- 
bility, self, God. To these might also be added as further illus- 
trations other ideas obtained intuitively, as beauty, that things 
equal to the same thing are equal to one another, that the 
whole is equal to the sum of all its parts. These things are 
perceived by the mind to be true as soon as they are pre- 
sented, without any logical processes, demonstration, or in- 
struction from without. One does not need to be told there 
is space. On the occurrence of the appropriate occasion the 
mind at once leaps to the conclusion that space is a reality 
and necessary—it could not but be. Probably many persons 
have never reasoned about the necessity of space, yet they have 
believed space a reality from early infancy and act upon it 
every time they use a measuring rule. And what is true of 
space ig also true of substance. Many adults have never rea- 
soned that substance is a reality nor felt the need of such rea- 
soning. They know intuitively that substance is, and act on 
their conviction continually in every use of the senses. Men 
need not be taught the actuality of time. Duration, like space, 
can not but be. When the proper conditions occur to give rise to 
the idea, men simply know time is and act on that knowledge; 
hence they own clocks and watches. Causality, or the idea that 
every effect has a cause, is likewise self-evident, and the common 
sense of mankind has always affirmed it to be true. Only in philo- 
sophical speculation is this and other intuitive truths denied. So 
likewise psychologists refer all necessary ideas and truths to 
intuition. The great moral truths of God, moral obligation, and 
future existence are also intuitively known, and are questioned 
only when the mind is influenced by speculative theories. 

It is not affirmed here that innate ideas are always con- 


ORIGIN OF OUR IDEA OF GOD 45 


sciously held as true. The idealist who denies the actuality of 
matter yet acts on the fact of his intuitive belief in the reality 
of matter. He can not do otherwise. Men perceive and act on 
the great truths of intuition that are necessary to their very being 
without first reasoning about them. They are, in fact, necessary 
to reasoning and too important to man’s welfare to be left to a 
process so uncertain ag fallible human reasoning. The simplest 
act requires the assumption of important truths. When I take 
up my pen to write I manifest belief in (1) substance, of which 
the pen consists; (2) space, in which that substance is; (3) 
self, as distinguished from externality, without which I can not 
take the pen; (4) time, without which change of relation to the 
pen is impossible; and (5) causation, or self-determination, 
without the fact of which it would be impossible to attempt this 
or any other accomplishment. 

The reality of intuitive knowledge is evident from what thus 
far has been stated. From these more generally recognized 
intuitions we may learn those characteristics or criteria by which 
we may in turn test those other truths whose intuitive char- 
acter is questioned. These criteria of all intuitions then, upon 
eareful consideration, will be found to be two—universality and 
necessity. In the nature of things, these are inclusive of each 
other. If a matter be necessary of belief, it must be a universal 
belief. On the other hand, if an idea is universally believed and 
acted upon it must be because no man can reasonably eall it in 
question. 

2. Proofs that the Idea of God Is an Intuition.—In affirming 
that the knowledge of God is innate, let it not be supposed that 
a complete apprehension of God in all his perfections as de- 
seribed in the Scriptures is possible by this means. It is here 
affirmed only that the idea of a superior being on whom we are 
dependent and to whom we are responsible is an intuition. 
Doubtless this original idea of God needs to be and may be 
vastly broadened and given more definiteness by reasoning con- 
cerning it, but only by a supernatural revelation can we have 
accurate knowledge of him. Let us test the idea of God as being 
an intuition by applying the test of universality and necessity, 
the criteria of innate ideas. 

(1) Universality of the Idea of God.—What is the proof 
that the idea of God is universal? It is a fact of history that 


46 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the vast majority of the race have been, religious, and acknowl- 
edged thereby their belief in a superior being or beings. This 
is a matter of common knowledge, and so much so that proof is 
superfluous. Belief in God has been characteristic of the ancient 
Egyptians, the Babylonians, Syrians, Phenicians, Greeks, Ro- 
mans, all European nations past and present, the inhabitants 
of the populous countries of the Far East, the American Indians, 
and the African negroes. 

But it is objected that whole tribes have been found by tra- 
velers and missionaries which were so degraded that they seemed 
to possess no idea of God whatever. In answer it may be said 
that these very tribes who seemed on slight acquaintance to be 
entirely destitute of the idea of God, upon further investiga- 
tion were found to hold it. And it is not unreasonable to sup- 
pose that this will always be found to be true of all such which 
at first are seemingly atheistic tribes. In some instances mis- 
sionaries have labored for years among a very degraded people 
before they found traces of a general belief in the supernatural, 
due to the natives shrinking from making known to strangers 
those mysteries which they held sacredly secret. 

But suppose such an ignorant and degraded tribe of atheists 
were found to exist? Would such an exception be proof that 
the mass of mankind in the normal condition are also thus igno- 
rant? Or if a tribe of idiots should be discovered, would their 
existence prove that reason is not normal to mankind? Would 
it not rather be assumed that the extreme degradation of such 
a tribe had resulted in their losing the use of an important and 
essential part of human nature? Does the fact that some men 
are born deaf disprove the sense of hearing as normal to men? 
Or does the frequency of infanticide among a people disprove 
the reality of parental affection ? 

Again, it is objected that some persons born deaf and blind 
affirm that they had no knowledge of God until taught concern- 
ing him. It seems scareely possible that such persons should 
have been void of any feeling of moral obligation, and this im- 
plies the idea of God in a measure. Doubtless they had no such 
conception of God as they came to have in the light of divine 
revelation, and in comparing their lack of knowledge of God 
with what they afterward came to have they assumed they were 
entirely without an idea of God in early life. Also the argu- 


ORIGIN OF OUR IDEA OF GOD 47 


ment of the preceding paragraph applies here, that the ignorance 
of a few such persons no more proves that the vast majority of 
them are without a normal intuitive knowledge of God than to 
suppose that a, few idiots blind and deaf from birth would dis- 
prove rationality as normal in persons born without the senses 
of sight and hearing. 

Or again, it is objected to the doctrine that the idea of God 
has its source in intuition, that there are men here and there, 
even educated men in a few instances, who are professed athe- 
ists. The unreasonableness and absurdity of holding atheism 
will be shown later, but here it may be said that it is only by 
philosophical speculation that one may have such views. It no 
more disproves the intuitive knowledge of God than the intuition 
of substance is disproved by the fact that a certain class of 
philosophers deny its reality when holding idealism, or than the 
intuition of free will is disproved by the denial of it on the part 
of those whose false philosophy requires them to hold necessi- 
tarianism. With the proof of the universality of the idea of 
God it is shown to meet the first criterion of intuitions. 

(2) Necessity of the Idea of God.—Proof of the universality 
of the idea of God is essentially proof that the idea of God is 
also necessary as the cause of its universality. It is true that 
a few persons do, in contradiction to the laws of their nature, 
deny the being of God; but such denial is always forced and 
ean be only temporary. It is only when under the influence of 
a false philosophical theory that the mind can thus go contra- 
dictory to its nature, but as soon as that theory is out of the 
mind it will naturally revert to its intuitive conviction of God 
as surely as the pendulum when unconstrained hangs perpendicu- 
larly to the horizon. And ag the pendulum may be caused to 
vary from a perpendicular position by holding a powerful mag- 
net near it, so intuitions are perverted by unsound theories. 
That the idea of a personal God is necessary to man has been 
well demonstrated in the history of certain of the great world 
religions. Buddhism was atheistic in its creed as originally 
held, and Hinduism is likewise pantheistic. But their millions 
of devotees are human, and this primitive conviction in them 
that God is and that he is a person is so strong that in spite of 
their creeds they have ever acted out that conviction. The 
divinely implanted tendency to pray has been so irresistible that 


48 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


they can not refrain from it. In fact, Buddhists have been 
compelled to modify those very atheistic tenets of their faith 
because they were lacking in correspondence with a great de- 
mand of human nature. This alone is sufficient proof that the 
idea of God is necessary, which is the second criterion of intui- 
tions and therefore proof that the idea of God is an intuition. 
Psychologists refer all necessary truths to intuition. 

(3) The Bible Assumes It—The Scriptures nowhere attempt 
the proof of the existence of God. It is assumed as being a truth 
already known and accepted. ~ The opening verse of the Bible 
names God as the Creator, but does not wait to introduce him. 
Doubtless this is due to both the inspiring Spirit and the wise 
human writer recognizing the superfluity of such an introduc- 
tion. This reasoning from the Scriptures to prove the innate 
knowledge of God will have no value, of course, in proving his 
existence to an unbeliever except as corroboration of proofs 
from other sources, but it is important to believers in the divine 
revelation not only as corroboration but as proof of the uni- 
versality of such knowledge by the assumption of so important 
a fact by the Scriptures. 

(4) Its Importance Requres It.—Also it is altogether rea- 
sonable to infer that the idea of God is a first truth because of 
its vast importance in determining moral obligation and for 
man’s present and eternal welfare. As Robespierre said, ‘‘If 
God did not exist, it would behoove man to invent him.’’ If 
the idea of God were not an intuition, it ought to be. That the 
knowledge of a matter of such vast consequence should be left 
to the uncertainties of educational processes, or should be a 
mere accident of the mind’s circumstances, is inconceivable. The 
only proper original source of the knowledge of God is in the 
constitution of the mind itself. The idea of God must be avail- 
able to all alike, and not possible merely to those who are so 
fortunate as to be taught about him, or whose rational powers 
are sufficiently developed to arrive at such knowledge by logical 


processes. 


Ii. Other Supposed Sources of the Idea 
1. From Animistic Superstition—Animism is that form of su- 
perstition, common to the more degraded portions of the race, 
which believes that certain rocks, trees, streams, springs, caves, 


ORIGIN OF OUR IDEA OF GOD 49 


ete., are animated or inhabited by spirits which must be wor- 
shiped and which will do injury to those who neglect such wor- 
ship. The spirits which these barbarous people fear and wor- 
ship are their gods, and animism is therefore closely related to 
their religion. Naturalistic evolution and other antitheistic 
philosophies refer the origin of religion and of, the idea of God 
to such animistic superstition, and on the theory that even relig- 
ion is the result of a process of evolution. They assume that 
animism was common to primitive man, that from that super- 
stitious fear of spirits which he supposed dwelt in these various 
material objects he came to worship many idols in the forms of 
various images, ete., that with increased culture he evolved a 
higher polytheism, and that from this came the monotheistic 
idea of a Supreme Being. That this is the theory as held by 
those classes of philosophers mentioned is evident from the 
statement of E. B. Taylor in ‘‘Primitive Culture,’’ ‘‘ Animism 
is... the groundwork of the philosophy of religion.’’ 

At this point it may be well to state that we have no sym- 
pathy with this theory. Our objection to such an origin of the 
idea of God is not only because it is contradictory to the teaching 
of the Scripture, but, and especially, because it is not true to 
the plain facts of the earliest history of the race. From the 
history of religion it is clear that the tendency of religion is to 
degenerate rather than to rise to a purer form. Such has been 
true of the various great ethnic religions. Such has also been 
true of the true religion. Ancient Israel were continually de- 
parting from the exalted form of worship given them by Moses. 
And even Christianity has ever struggled against the degener- 
ating tendencies with which it has come in contact, which are 
doubtless to be accounted for on the ground of depraved human 
nature. The theory that our idea of God came by a process of 
evolution from a primitive fear of imaginary spirits in material 
inanimate objects is a Mere a@ priori assumption. 

What does the actual history of religions have to say on this 
subject? Were the primitive ideas of God polytheistic, or mono- 
theistic? According to the most dependable authorities and best 
scholars, the earliest religions of mankind were purely mono- 
theistic, and disallowed many gods. Renouf supported this view 
of the religion of ancient Egypt and maintained there were very 
many eminent scholars who held the same view. That the primi- 


50 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


tive religion of the Chinese was monotheistic is maintained by 
James Legge, who was professor of the Chinese language and 
literature in Oxford University. The very ancient Aryans, from 
whom sprang the Hindus, Persians, and most of the great Euro- 
pean nations, held monotheism. Many eminent authorities in 
support of a primitive monotheism are cited by Dr. F. F. Ellin- 
wood in his ‘‘ Oriental Religions and Christianity’’ (pp. 222-265). 

2. Exclusively from Revelation.—It is the opinion of some the- 
ologians that the mind is capable of a knowledge of God only 
by supernatural revelation. It has been reasoned in support of 
this view that such persons as Adam, Abraham, or Moses, to 
whom God gave such revelation, have had the clearest knowl- 
edge of God and that to the extent that men have been remote 
from these original revelations, either geographically or chrono- 
logically, they have held less correct ideas of God unless they 
have had the Scripture records of those revelations. This view 
has been made especially prominent by Watson and others who 
doubtless were caused to take this position out of reverence for 
the Word of God and especially in opposition to the false claims 
for the ‘‘natural religion’’ of English deism with which they 
came into conflict. Probably this very controversy which raged 
in their day influenced them unduly against the intuition of 
God’s existence. Doubtless revelation is needed to enlarge and 
develop the innate idea of God, yet unless man already possessed 
the idea of God the revelation from God could have no authority 
for him, whether that revelation were transmitted by oral tradi- 
tion or by the Scriptures. 

3. From a Process of Reasoning—Many of those who reject 
the idea of God as an intuition would refer the origin of the idea 
to a process of reasoning. Doubtless the mind is capable of 
learning about God by rational processes, but such a method of 
first obtaining the idea is rather a theoretical possibility than an 
actual fact. The mind does not wait for reasoning, or a logical 
process. When the proper conditions are brought about, the 
idea ‘‘flashes on the soul with the quickness and force of an 
immediate revelation.’’ That reasoning is not the means of 
gaining the idea of God is evident from the fact that the strength 
of men’s conviction of the being of God, is not in proportion to 
their powers of reason. Multitudes of men who can not grasp 
the logical arguments of the divine existence yet have an un- 


ORIGIN OF OUR IDEA OF GOD 51 


wavering conviction of its truth, while others of extraordinary 
reasoning power are skeptics. 

What then is the place of reasoning as a means of knowing 
about God? First it must be allowed that rational arguments 
do much to enlarge and extend our intuitive idea of God. We 
can thus come to a clearer apprehension of his character and 
attributes. Again, these arguments for the divine existence have 
value in corroborating and confirming the intuitive conviction 
as being true, as by reasoning we may prove the veracity of the 
intuition that the whole is equal to the sum of all the parts. 
Yet the mind finds itself in possession of this knowledge imme- 
diately on the occurrence of the proper conditions, before it has 
time to reason, 


Ill. What Does This Intuition Contain? 


To know that any particular thing or person exists, one must 
necessarily know somewhat as to the nature, properties, quali- 
ties, characteristics, or attributes of that thing or person. Such 
knowledge is inseparable from the knowledge of the existence of 
the thing in the nature of the case. Therefore to know that God 
is, is necessarily to have some idea as to what God is, or con- 
cerning his attributes. The intuition that God exists contains 
also some idea of his nature. This does not mean that one can 
know God by intuition adequately for the performance of all 
human duties. The gross misconceptions that have mutilated 
men’s thought of God are sufficient proof that at least in their 
present depraved condition men do not intuitively know the na- 
ture of God in important respects. How clear would be the 
contents of the intuition of God to one who has never known 
the moral perversion of depraved human nature can not be 
known. Yet when all this has been said, the fact remains that 
God’s nature is known in a considerable measure. The intuition 
of God implies: (1) a personal being who may be properly wor- 
shiped; (2) a perfection of moral character in God that places 
men under moral obligation to him; (3) a power above on 
whom men are dependent. At least this much is contained in 
the intuition of God. 


CHAPTER II 
EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 


Although belief in God’s existence is an intuition of the mind 
of man and arises spontaneously under proper conditions, yet 
theistic arguments have great value for corroboration and con- 
firmation of that innate idea. Rational evidences should not be 
despised as being useless. The mind craves rational satisfaction, 
such as only logical argument can give, concerning this great 
truth. Also, the intuition alone-is not in a position to meet the 
subtle attacks of skepticism. False reasoning must be met with 
rational argument. Again, formal argumentation is helpful in 
developing the intuitive idea of God, in explaining it and in 
illustrating it. Though the mind instinctively believes before 
philosophy has begun to set its proofs in order, yet the mind 
naturally seeks to supply to itself a logical account of its belief. 
However conclusive the proofs of theism may be, it is always to 
be remembered that the knowledge of God is not dependent upon 
them. The arguments are not held to demonstrate the fact of 
God, but they do show a degree of probability of the divine 
existence that amounts to certainty. Also, each argument need 
not be regarded as proving the whole doctrine of theism. One 
argument may prove one fact about God, and others other facts; 
so the various arguments constitute a series of proofs that is 
cumulative in nature. 

The most common arguments for theism are four in number: 
(1) the First-cause, or Cosmological; (2) the Design, or Teleo- 
logical; (8) the Human-nature, or Anthropological; (4) the 
A Priori, or Ontological. To these is sometimes added a fifth 
—the Biblical, or Revelation, Argument. 


I. The First-Cause, or Cosmological, Argument 


This argument for the Divine existence is based upon the 
fact of causation. Regarding the universe in its present form 
as an effect, it reasons that it must have had a sufficient cause. 
Because something can not come from nothing, and something 
now exists, therefore something has always existed. It further 
reasons that the original cause which is responsible for the be- 
ginning of the universe as we now know it must have been an 


eternal cause, and also a free cause that could volitionate at a 
52 


EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 53 


particular time the beginning of matter or the beginning of 
those changes in what most antitheists unscripturally regard as 
already existing matter that have resulted in the present uni- 
verse. This free cause can be no less than an eternal person 
indefinitely great, whom we know as God, 


The argument may be put more exactly in syllogistic form, 
as follows: 

Major Premise.—Everything begun, whether substance or 
change in things before existing, must have had a sufficient pre- 
existing cause. 


Minor Premise—The world in every part is continually 
changing. 

Conclusion.—Therefore the world must have a cause outside 
of itself and the original cause must be eternal, uncaused, and 
possessing free will. 

Two truths are requisite to the cosmological argument: (1) 
the principle of causation; (2) the universe is an effect of a 
cause outside itself. If these are shown to be true, the argu- 
ment is sound proof of God’s existence. 


1. The Law of Causation.—Causation is self-evident and is uni- 
versally recognized. It is a truth so thoroughly ineradicable, so 
universal, and so necessary that it must be regarded as is the 
idea of God itself, as being an intuition of the reason. That 
every event must have a cause is the belief of all men. And 
cause, to be a cause, must be cause sufficient or adequate to the 
result accomplished. If it is not such, it is not a cause. 

Only in philosophical speculation do men ever think of 
denying the principle of causation. Such men as Hume and 
Mill have had the boldness to deny it theoretically, but they 
themselves in reasoning about the origin of the world and of the 
things it contains do not fail to employ the truth of causation. 
They have maintained that the idea of cause is the result of 
associating in our minds one thing with another and by the ob- 
servation of invariable sequence wrongly assuming the first 
thing to be the cause of the second. But common sense tells us 
there is more in the relation of what we call cause and effect 
than mere regular succession. There is no more regular suc- 
cession than day and night, yet who would suppose night is 
caused by day and day is caused by night? Or who would say 


54 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


that summer and winter cause each other merely because of 
their invariably following each other? 

But cause is more than the mere antecedent of an event. It 
is an antecedent to whose efficiency an event as an effect is due. 
The only cause of which we are immediately conscious is our 
own wills. We take a book from a shelf and lay it on the table. 
We know the location of the book on the table is the result of a 
cause and that personal will is that cause. We know the book 
would never have passed from the shelf to the table except for 
a cause. Likewise we may properly regard every event as being 
the result of a cause even though we are not that cause. It is 
true there may be dependent causes that are themselves the re- 
sults of other causes, but reason requires an original and eternal 
cause of all these dependent causes that is independent and free. 

But the objector to the First-cause Argument professes to 
find an alternative in the idea of an infinite regressive series of 
dependent causes. But such an infinite series of causes and 
effects is unreasonable, because a mere series of changes must 
itself have had a cause. The infinite-series idea is like ‘‘the 
ehain that hangs on nothing.’’ To follow back through any 
number of dependent causes as links in a chain is not to find the 
first and real cause. The mind can not be content to rest in 
such an endless-series idea, but instinctively leaps to the thought 
of an independent first cause. But further disproof of the in- 
finite-series idea igs needless. No one believes it. It is used in 
antitheistie reasoning only as an objection to sound theistic argu- 
ment, and then is cast away by those who use it. 

Again, it is objected to the idea of a necessary independent 
first cause that the world may be regarded as being many inter- 
acting parts as dependent causes. It is as if the points of four 
pencils were placed upon the table and the tops leaned against 
each other in the form of a pyramid so that they are mutually 
self-supporting. We readily admit that the universe is consti- 
tuted with these interacting dependent causes. It is a fact of 
science and is open to the observation of all men. Sandstone is 
formed from beds of sand, and beds of sand are the result of 
the crumbling of the stone again. The blood is kept pure by the 
respiration of the lungs, and yet the lungs ean not continue to 
function except by a supply of pure blood. But allowing all 
this, these interacting dependent causes need a cause for their 


EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 55 


being and interaction. Ag Bowne has well said, ‘‘ An interacting 
many can not exist without a coordinating one.’’ No number 
of dependent causes can constitute an independent cause when 
added together, as independence can not originate in depend- 
ence. Back of all these interacting dependent causes, then, must 
be an independent cause that coordinates them and causes their 
interaction, as in the aforementioned pyramid of pencils that 
support each other, an independent external cause must arrange 
the pencils so they will support each other. Reason requires, 
not only for the series of causes, but also for the interacting sys- 
tem of causes, a real and independent cause of that series or 
system. 

Any real cause, then, must be an original cause, not merely 
an intermediate link in a chain of dependent causes and effects. 
The mind will be content with nothing less than that cause which 
supports the most distant dependent cause. And reason requires 
that the original cause be eternal in duration. Nothing can not 
be a cause. Something exists now and it could not have come out 
of antecedent nothingness; so somewhat must have always existed 
that caused all things as they now are. 

Again, any real cause must be a free cause. ‘‘An uncaused 
cause is a free cause.’’—G. P. Fisher, Natural Theology, p. 14. 
If it acts of necessity it is dependent, and must itself be only an 
effect and a result of another cause. Only an independent cause 
can be a free cause; and independent, free cause certainly im- 
plies free will in a conscious independent being. Man has the 
power of first cause of certain effects because of his free will. 
Both from intuition and from rational processes it is certain 
that real original cause is to be attributed only to a personal will; 
therefore to whatever extent it can be shown that the world is 
the result of a cause exterior to itself we have proof of a personal 
God as creator. 

2. The Universe Is an Effect.—As it now exists; the universe is 
an effect. Nothing is more strongly stressed by modern science 
than that both organic and inorganic nature are the result of 
&@ process and came to be what they are through a process. Man 
is evidently of comparatively recent origin, according to science. 
Before man, the lower forms of life had a beginning, and be- 
yond them was a period when no life existed—an azoic state. 
Even the nebular and evolutionary hypotheses hold that all 


56 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


things which now exist had a beginning and have been evolved 
from a primordial fire-mist. But this beginning must have had 
a cause; for a beginning is an event, and every event must have 
a cause. A spontaneous generation of the primitive life is not 
admissible with science, and is practically a denial of the prin- 
ciple of causation, as will be shown later. Also, that alleged 
primordial fire-mist can not have been the eternal and original 
cause of all; for if it were eternal it would have been mature, or 
fully developed. And if so, it could not have further developed 
into a universe. Also if it were eternal it would necessarily be 
immutable and could not change. But if it changed, that is proof 
it is not eternal, but is like all other changing forms of matter— 
a result of a cause. The minute physical divisions of matter, the 
molecules, being of exact equality, bear the marks of being manu- 
factured articles and not eternal or self-existent, according to 
Sir John Herschell. 

3. What the Argument Proves.—With the proof, then, of the 
principle of causation and that the universe is an effect of which 
no sufficient cause is to be found in itself, reason requires an 
adequate extra-mundane cause, eternal and uncaused, possessing 
free will and omnipotent power. These necessary qualities point 
strongly to the personality of the first cause. The Cosmological 
Argument, then, furnishes proof of theism with a degree of 
certainty little short of a demonstration, by proving the fact of 
a first cause, that that cause is eternal, uncaused, unchangeable, 
omnipotent, free, and, we may safely say in harmony with many 
able thinkers, a personal Cause who is God. 


II. The Design, or Teleological, Argument 


1. Nature of the Argument.—The Design, or Teleological, 
Argument reasons from marks of design, or from orderly and 
useful arrangements, in nature to an intelligent cause. It is not, 
however, a reasoning from design to a designer, as it is some- 
times wrongly stated; for design implies a designer; but rather 
a reasoning from marks of design to a designer. 

By design is meant the selection and pursuit of ends. It is 
the choosing of an end to be attained, the selection of proper 
means to accomplish it, and the use of the means to attain the 
end chosen. When we see at the foot of a rocky cliff broken 
fragments of rock of unequal sizes, irregular and uneven shapes, 


EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 57 


strewn about regardless of their relation to each other, we decide 
at once the size, shape, and location of them is a result of chance. 
But when we see hundreds of bricks of equal size, even color, 
and faces all bearing one imprint, laid in straight, level rows in 
hard mortar and forming a perpendicular wall with suitable 
openings for windows and doors, we decide the qualities and 
arrangement of them are the result of intelligent purpose or 
design. It is not necessary that one shall have seen the bricks 
manufactured and laid in the wall to know the wall is the result 
of design. The very fact of orderly and useful arrangement 
therein is abundant proof of contrivance by an intelligent being. 

The Design Argument may be given in syllogistic form, as 
follows: 

Major Premise.-Orderly and harmonious cooperation of 
many separate parts can be accounted for only by the assump- 
tion of an intelligent cause. 

Minor Premise.—The world everywhere exhibits orderly and 
harmonious cooperation of all its parts. 

Conclusion.—Therefore the original and absolute cause of the 
world is an intelligent cause. 

As in the works of man we reason from marks of design to 
an intelligent designer, so we may as properly reason from 
evidences of contrivance, or evidences of adaptation of means 
to ends, in nature, that the author of nature is intelligent. Nor 
is it necessary that we shall have known by observation and 
experience that an intelligent agent is behind nature. It is 
enough that we know from experience what are the character- 
istic signs of intelligence. Then when we see those signs whether 
in the contrivances of man or in nature we properly decide they 
are the result of an intelligent mind. The very nature of design 
is such that it implies intelligence, and wherever marks of con- 
trivance are found it is certain they must be referred to intelli- 
gence. Not only in the origin of nature as shown in the First- 
cause Argument must we recognize the principle of causation, 
but also in the orderly arrangement of nature as set forth in the 
Design Argument. 

Orderly and useful arrangement in nature is certain. Marks 
of design are apparent everywhere and are conclusive proof that 
the author of nature is an intelligent person. All science as- 
sumes that nature is rationally constructed. Huxley said, ‘‘Sci- 


58 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ence is the discovery of a rational order that pervades the uni- 
verse.’’ Except for that uniformity which shows nature to be 
a system and a result of design science would be impossible. 
The results of chance can not be understood by the mind. But 
the universe can be understood by the mind, showing clearly 
that it is the result of a mind. It may be objected that the 
orderly arrangements in nature are not designed to be useful 
but are merely used because they can be used. But he who says 
the eye sees merely because it can see, the ear hears merely be- 
cause it can hear, the hand handles only because capable of doing 
so and that none of them were designated to perform such func- 
tions says what the common sense of men everywhere refuses to 
accept. As well might it be said that the locomotive draws its 
train merely because it can draw it, not because built to do so; 
or that the printing-press prints books because it can do so, not 
because it was designed to do so. How much more reasonable 
it is to believe that useful arrangements in nature as well as in 
human devices are the result of the selection and pursuit of ends, 
or that the beneficial functioning of nature is ag it is because a 
kind and gracious Father designed it so for the sake of his 
children. 

What being, says Cicero, that is ‘‘destitute of intellect and 
reason could have produced these things which not only had 
need of reason to cause them to be, but which are such as can be 
understood only by the highest exertions of reason?’’ (De Nat. 
Deorum, II, 44). 

Probably the Design Argument can not be better illustrated 
than it has been by William Paley (Natural Theology, p. 5). 
His argument in substance is as follows: If in erossing a field I 
strike my foot against a stone and ask how it came there, I 
might reply that it has been there forever. But if later in my 
walk I find a watch and the question of the origin of the watch 
be raised, the answer must be very different. A casual obsery- 
ance of its mechanism—of its wheels with cogs exactly fitting 
into each other, of its springs, of the relation of part to part, 
and of its exact adjustment so that it exactly measures time— 
furnishes convineing proof that it is a reliable example of hu- 
man contrivance, and not the result of chance. And even the 
discovery in the watch of useless, broken, or deranged parts 
would not invalidate the reasoning that it was designed by an 


EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 59 


intelligent mind. For more than a century Dr. Paley’s argu- 
ment has stood unanswered, and it may properly be regarded 
as unanswerable. Advancement in science has made minor ad- 
jJustments necessary, and to the extent the evolutionary hypoth- 
esis has been given place an extra link must be allowed in the 
argument, yet it still stands in all its strength. 

To carry Paley’s watch illustration a step farther, suppose 
that watch I find in the field has not only a fine mechanism for 
the measurement of time, but also contains within itself an 
elaborate machine-shop with lathes and other necessary machin- 
ery and has the ability to manufacture other watches like itself, 
and not only as good, but better watches than itself, and that it 
had itself been evolved from a less perfect watch. Would such re- 
markable ability in that hypothetical watch disprove a design- 
ing intelligence behind that race of watches? If watches came 
from other watches, they would not be so immediately the result 
of intelligent design, but certainly the cause that originated 
them and involved in that first watch those wonderful qualities 
later evolved must have been indeed an intelligence far superior 
to that manifested in actual watches as they have been designed 
by men. Then if evolution were admitted as a process in nature, 
instead of invalidating the idea of design and the design argu- 
ment for God’s existence, it would strengthen it. Whether the 
theory of evolution be regarded as true or false, we may con- 
sistently cite marks of design in proof of an intelligent creator, 
though in the one case design would be less directly manifested 
than in the other, yet just as really shown. 

The Design Argument is probably the simplest and most con- 
vineing of all theistic proofs. It has been appealed to by theists 
of all times, nations, and religions. It is frequently referred to 
in the Scriptures. ‘‘The heavens declare the glory of God; and 
the firmament sheweth his handiwork’’ (Psa. 19:1). In Rom. 
1:20 the apostle Paul, affirms that God’s eternal power may be 
clearly seen in the things that are made. Heathen philosophers, 
including Anaxagoras, Socrates, and Cicero, made much use of 
it. So did also the Jewish writer Philo. All the church fathers 
and theologians until the present day have appealed to it in 
proof of theism. Truly God ‘‘hath not left himself without wit- 
ness’? among all men. 

2. Evidences of Design in Nature—The marks of intelligent 


60 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


contrivance in nature are countless. They may be found on 
every hand. They may be seen in the movements of the vast 
planets far away in the starry sky and also in every minute 
insect on the earth. In all the realm of inorganic nature they are 
to be found, as well as in every plant that grows. And again, 
they, may be found in large numbers in each of the millions of 
bodies of both animals and men. They appear, not only in single 
organs, but in the relation of organs to each other. Evidences 
of design are also apparent in the adaptations of the world to 
the life of plants and animals, and of the organs of animals to 
their instincts. Limited space excludes an extended exhibition 
of examples of design in nature, but those here given will serve 
at least as an indication of the nature of the evidence. 

The remarkable operation of an intricate machine often fills 
a thoughtful person with wonder, and he is impressed with the 
far-seeing design and intelligence of its inventor. But how 
much more wonderful is the human body, and how much more 
does it show design! What machine is so perfect in its mechan- 
ism and operation as is this one? All its parts, organs, and func- 
tions are nicely adjusted to each other. It repairs its defective 
parts while in operation, and generates its own energy. But it 
is through definite concrete examples that the most vivid impres- 
sion of design in nature is received. 

If the intricate lens of a camera manifests design, how much 
more does the eye? ‘Their general principles are similar; but 
how much more perfect is the eye than the lens of a camera! 
It is not an opening in the head, nor a mere nerve center such 
as one might suppose from what some evolutionists say in at- 
tempting an evolutionary theory of its origin. It has a lid asa 
means of protecting the tender ball, and that lid moves with 
wonderful quickness. The ball is not set immovable in its socket, 
but has muscles so attached to it that it can be turned in all 
directions of the field of vision. Again, the structure of the 
eyeball is wonderfully adapted to the light, and' to the function 
of seeing. The opening to the lens is contracted or enlarged, in 
adjustment to the amount of light falling upon the retina, by a 
most delicate arrangement of muscles that are not dependent 
upon the will, but on the stimulus of the light itself. The lens 
itself is capable of such exact adjustment that the rays of light 
are refracted in such a manner as to bring them to a proper 


EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 61 


focus on the retina. Spread out on this retina is the only nerve 
in the body susceptible of light and color. These are but a few 
of the evidences of design in the structure of the eye. As cer- 
tainly as design may be seen in any human contrivance, it may 
be seen in this wonderful organ. But what unthinking credulity 
must that be which would rather attribute the intricate wonders 
of the eye to chance, or another non-intelligent cause! And if 
it be objected that the eye, with all its wonders, may be the re- 
sult of evolution, it is not necessary to argue the point, but only 
to say in reply: Then how far-seeing and intelligent must have 
been the designer to implant the power to effect by a process of 
evolution that wonderful organ as we now know it. 

Likewise the ear is not a mere opening into the head, but a 
very delicate and complicated device for catching sound-waves 
and producing the sensation of hearing by means of the auditory 
nerve. It is a far more wonderful mechanism than that ex- 
hibited in a telephone or radiophone receiving instrument; and 
as they bear undeniable evidence of design by man, so does this 
much more of a designing creator. If space would allow, proofs 
of design might be shown in various other organs, as of digestion, 
reproduction, the heart, the lungs, the nerves, and in the bones, 
muscles, and skin, which are all wonderfully adapted to their 
use. But these have been exhaustively discussed by many able 
writers, to whom those are referred who would pursue this phase 
of the subject farther (see Natural Theology [Paley]. Bridge- 
water Treatises. Natural Theology [Fisher] ). 

Not only in single organs is design shown, but also in the 
relation of organs to each other and to the conditions under 
which the animal is to live. The fish, suited to live in the water, 
as shown by his gills, has also fins and tail adapted to swimming, 
as is also the shape of its body. The bird with wings suitable 
for flying in the air has also hollow bones and feathers, which 
make flight possible. The bird with long legs for wading in the 
water has also a long neck. And the bird that floats on the 
water has feathers impenetrable by water, and web-feet. Even 
man, with a mind superior to all other animals and capable of 
wonderful contriving, has also an upright body and a hand cap- 
able of executing all the mind contrives. Man’s hand is far 
better adapted to work than is the hand of any species of ape. 
In fact, the human hand is so remarkable in its mechanism that 


62 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Dr. Charles Bell has written an entire volume about it as an 
example of design. What wise design is shown by this relation 
of organs! And fully as remarkable is that design shown in 
adapting organs to instincts of particular species. Carnivorous 
animals have claws and teeth suited to catching and eating their 
prey, while those with an instinct for eating vegetables have 
teeth and stomachs adapted to their instinct. 

A still more remarkable example of design is the provision 
for the support of the young even before they are born. With 
mammals, the breasts or udder of the mother begin to swell 
and store a supply of milk; so as soon as the young are born, 
the most nourishing food possible is ready for them. Similarly, 
a food-supply is also stored in the egg. Certainly here is: proof 
of a wise, foreseeing mind that designed these things so. 

Even in inorganic nature are to be seen marks of a similar 
wise design. Except for the fact of evaporation of moisture in 
the atmosphere by heat, and its condensation by cold, life would 
be impossible on the earth. On warm summer days life would 
be destroyed by the intense heat except for the fact that heat is 
taken up by the moisture of the earth, vegetation, or bodies of 
water as the water becomes vapor. Likewise, on the cool sum- 
mer nights vegetation would die of frost and cold, and life would 
consequently soon become extinct on the earth, except for the 
condensation of the vapor in the atmosphere into the dew; as it 
thus condenses, a vast amount of heat stored during the day is 
given out and the temperature is kept moderate. What a won- 
derful provision is this! It is either a proof of design by a kind 
creator, or else a result of chance. The atheist may be credulous 
enough to believe the latter, but the common sense of mankind 
has always felt constrained to attribute it to the design of a 
heavenly Father. 

It is a general law of nature that bodies contract as they 
cool. Water becomes heavier as it cools and the cold water 
settles to the bottom, while the warmer remains at the top. But 
by a special law of nature that is very singular, ice does not first 
form at the bottom of a body of water, but when the tempera- 
ture of that water at the bottom falls to about four degrees 
above the freezing-point it begins to expand and becomes lighter; 
so ice always forms on top first. Except for this special law 
the larger bodies of water in the temperate zone would soon 


EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 63 


become solid masses of ice, frozen from the bottom to the top, 
that would not melt during the entire summer, and all life in 
them would perish. If this special provision in nature does 
not show design in nature, then what could show it? Even the 
theory of evolution can not account for such a provision; but it 
must be regarded as a direct result of design. 

The power of gravitation is so common, we are apt to over- 
look it. But suppose the attraction of gravitation were but one 
fourth as strong as it is; how difficult it would be to keep our 
houses on their foundations, and what a task it would be to 
keep on one’s feet on windy days! Or imagine the drawing of 
gravitation four times as strong as it is now; how tired one 
would become of his own weight, and especially of carrying 
necessary burdens! If heavy persons should sit or lie down, 
they would be unable ever to rise up again. Or suppose the 
axis of our earth were perpendicular to our sun instead of in- 
clined; then no changing seasons would ever be known, but only 
one long, monotonous, changeless temperature. Surely a kind 
creator has wisely designed all these things. 

3. Objections to the Design Argument.—It is sometimes object- 
ed to the foregoing reasoning that nature does not always ap- 
pear to bear evidences of design, and useless and rudimentary 
organs in animals are pointed out as examples. Nor can the 
existence of such be properly denied. The spleen is sometimes 
cited as an example of a useless organ. But it may only properly 
be said that its use is not known to be important. Physiologists 
are seeking to learn more about its function and purpose. The 
mere fact that animals may live when it is removed proves only 
that it is not necessary to life, not that it has no purpose. 
Knowledge of the important functions of the large majority of 
the organs of the body gives such evidence of design in creation 
that present ignorance of the use of a few organs can not in- 
validate it. Also those rudimentary organs such as the teeth of 
whales, which they never need, and mamme in males of the 
higher species are cited as not supporting the Design Argument. 
In answer it may be said, first, that such are only in organic 
nature, and there are very few in number. Also it is a low view 
of utility that considers only the immediate wants of organisms. 
In a vehicle or a building, some parts serve a xood purpose in 
giving beauty, symmetry, and unity. Doubtless some of these 


64 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


rudimentary organs are best understood as serving this purpose. 
They are merely the characteristic features of the type, even 
though the individual does not need them. 

Again, it is objected to the Design Argument that all may 
have come as a result of chance. Inasmuch as they are few who 
thus deify chance, our answer may be brief. This objection will 
not be held by one who stops to think. It is affirmed that the 
world mighti have come to be by chance just as the Iliad might 
have been produced by throwing down quantities of letters. But 
every one knows that so large a number of separate elements 
would not accidentally fall into orderly relationship though 
trials should be made throughout eternity. Long ago Cicero 
denied the validity of that objection, and referred to that same 
illustration of thus making a book. Nor is the objection of 
‘‘ efficient cause’’ much better. It affirms the eye is the cause of 
sight, and that it sees because it can see, not because it was 
designed to see. It may properly be allowed that the eye sees 
because it can see, but also that it sees because it was made to 
see. This objection asks us to close our eyes to the marks of 
design and not think. It is but little better, if any, than the 
objection of chance, to which it is closely akin. 

Another objection to the Design Argument consists in an 
appeal to the theory of evolution as giving a sufficient account 
of the present orderly constitution of nature. It is assumed that 
law, if given sufficient time, can accomplish all that has been 
accomplished. It overlooks the very important fact that law is 
not an agent, but only a method by which an agent works; so 
can do nothing except as it is employed by an agent. Only 
beings are agents and unless a being were behind any supposed 
law of evolution, that law could have no efficiency. Whatever 
might be evolved by such a law must first have been involved 
by the agent employing the method. Even Darwin, though he 
at first expressed the belief that natural selection excludes de- 
sign, was inclined in later life to predicate designed laws which 
determine things generally. Then all the intelligent purpose 
shown in nature now must have controlled the evolution of it 
from the beginning, if evolution is assumed. Therefore evolu- 
tion could at the most be no more than a method of an intelli- 
gent designer. 

Objectors to the Design Argument also sometimes assume 


EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 65 


an overstrained modesty in theological questions and assert that 
because of finite intelligence we are not capable of knowing that 
the world is a result of design, and that all we can know is that 
things appear to be designed by an intelligent mind for certain 
ends. But do we not commonly assume that things are as they 
appear to be? Physical science bases its inductions on the 
appearance of things. Why may not theology do likewise? And 
if we can not fully comprehend the infinite, does it therefore 
follow that we can know nothing of God’s operation and design 
in nature? Because we can not comprehend the vastness of 
limitless space, shall we cease to recognize what we can compre- 
hend of it? 

The last objection to which attention is called is that based 
upon the operation of instinct. It is said that as blind instinct 
operating through animals may accomplish results similar to 
those of intelligent purpose, so all that appears to be design 
may be the result of such a cause. In reply, let it be first stated 
that instinct may not be a blind impulse, but, as Paley has de- 
fined it, ‘‘a propensity prior to experience and independent of 
instruction.’’ Certainly it is found only in organisms, and 
should be regarded as belonging to the animal constitution. It 
evidently indicates great intelligence in the power that im- 
planted instinct in animals. But there is no reason for attrib- 
uting instinct to blind force. Instinct itself is a remarkable 
example of design, and can be adequately accounted for only by 
regarding it as an instrument of an intelligent mind. 

In spite of all objections, the Design Argument for God’s 
existence still stands in all its strength. Far-seeing design in 
the author of the universe is evident from both inorganic and 
organic creation. Marks of wise contrivance are seen every- 
where, far surpassing any human ingenuity. The denial of 
design in creation consistently requires denial of all intelligent 
contrivance in men. The argument is clearly corroborative of 
the correctness of our intuition of the existence of a personal God. 

Ill. The Human Nature, or Anthropological, Argument 

1. The Argument Described.—The Human Nature, or Anthro- 
pological Argument is frequently called the Moral Argument, 
and sometimes the Psychological Argument; but we prefer desig- 
nating it by the more comprehensive term Anthropological because 
it reasons from the higher part of human nature generally. It 


66 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


reasons from man’s mental, moral, and religious nature that the 
creator must have possessed a similar nature. In reasoning 
from effect to an adequate first cause it is like the Cosmological 
Argument, of which it is a particular example. As the material 
universe must have had a sufficient cause, so must also the soul 
of man. The purpose in setting forth this as a separate argu- 
ment is that it shows the author of man’s soul to be the possessor 
of a like nature. The lofty powers of the human spirit could 
never have come from non-intelligent matter and force, but must 
be assigned to a cause possessing qualities of a far higher grade. 
This argument also partakes of the nature of that from design 
—in showing the adaptations of human nature to nature as a 
whole. 

It may be stated in part in the form of a syllogism, as follows: 

Major Premise.—As an intelligent and free moral being, man 
has had a beginning upon earth. 

Minor Prenuse.—Non-intelligent matter and force are not an 
adequate cause of intelligence, free will, and conscience in man. 

Conclusion.—Therefore, as an effect, man’s spiritual nature 
ean be referred only to a cause possessing intelligence; freedom, 
and a moral nature, which imply personality. 

2. Argument from Man’s Intelligence—Man’s intellect must 
have had an adequate cause. But it can not properly be attrib- 
uted to the non-intelligent. Ag well might we expect fulness to 
emanate from emptiness. Mind can not have come from matter. 
That they are essentially different in nature is the general con- 
viction of mankind. Only in speculative theories is the distine- 
tion ever denied. In the common consciousness of men as shown 
by their forms of speech about mind and matter or in referring 
to conscious existence after death, the distinction is clear. No 
two ideas are more widely different than those of mind and 
matter. Matter is known by its properties, but mind only by its 
phenomena. Also the terms describing each are essentially dif- 
ferent. Thought is not conceived of as having length, weight, 
area, color, thickness, or temperature. Only in figurative usage 
can any such terms be applied to mind and its phenomena. 
Inasmuch as an effect can not contain nor be greater than its 
cause, intelligence can not have come from the non-intelligent. 
Nothing can come out of matter not originally in it. In attempt- 
ing to show mind came from matter, Tyndall recognized this 


EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 67 


difficulty by calling for a new definition of matter. But no defini- 
tion of mind and matter nor calling mind the ‘‘inner face’’ of 
matter can change the facts or bridge the gulf that has ever 
differentiated mind and matter in fact and in the thought of 
mankind. The cause of the mind of man is an eternal mind; and 
because man’s mind is, we know God has mind. 

3. Argument from Man’s Freedom.—Another fact concerning 
the nature of God that may be known from the nature of man 
is that God is a free being. Man’s free will proves he originated 
from a source possessing free will. It is no more possible that 
man with his free will could have originated in that which is 
not free than that fulness should have come out of emptiness. 
The God of the pantheist could never have produced man. That 
man has free will is the universal belief of mankind, and is 
denied only in speculative reasoning. Man possesses a firm con- 
viction of his freedom, from which he can not alienate himself. 
Even if he does deny it, he constantly shows by his words and 
actions that he can not cease to believe it. But his freedom is 
not like the water of a river flowing between its banks, which 
of necessity must flow toward the lower point and is free to do 
only that. For man has the power of alternative choice. He 
can change the course of a river and, as he chooses, cause it to 
flow in any one of several directions. He can build houses, bend 
iron, or freely act on a body contrary to the power of gravita- 
tion. But more will be said about man’s freedom in the appro- 
priate place. The fact of his freedom is evidence that his maker 
is free. 

4. Argument from Man’s Moral Nature—O ur conscience, or 
feeling of moral obligation, implies One over us to whose law 
We are responsible. By the very constitution of our nature we 
have a sense of right and wrong. It is often expressed by the 
words ought and ought not. It is due to our recognition of one 
superior to us on whom we are dependent, and who rightfully 
has authority over us. It has reference to law that we are under 
and which we recognize as right. Conscience is real, and its 
requirements are imperative. It can not be denied nor ignored 
without its reproof. It is not controlled by the will. We can 
not free ourselves from its requirements. It demands and re- 
wards obedience, and punishes disobedience. But all this points 
to a law over us, and that law implies a giver and administrator 


68 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


of it who is over us and not appointed by us. It is also clear 
that the one above us is a free personal being. It is probably 
this sense of moral obligation to God especially which has been 
the ground of the universal conviction of men that God is. If 
there were no personal God, then this would be a lie stamped 
indelibly upon human nature. This can not be. There must be 
a personal creator possessed of a moral nature including attri- 
butes of justice and righteousness that are reflected in similar 
qualities in the nature of man as a moral being, for certainly 
the moral can not come from the non-moral. 

5. Argument from Man’s Religious Nature-—Again, man’s re- 
ligious nature or tendency to worship implies God. Man is 
ineurably religious, and has always and everywhere worshiped. 
This tendency to worship finds its complement only in a being 
who, as a person, is capable of communion, and as being perfect 
is worthy of adoration. Among all plants and animals, and in 
regard to the physical nature of man there is found no desire, 
capacity, or necessity but what nature has made adequate pro- 
visions to satisfy. Plants require water, and water exists for 
their satisfaction. Animals and men have an appetite for food, 
and appropriate food is provided to satisfy. Such a law and 
means of satisfaction of desire is a general law of nature. Shall 
we not, then, also suppose there is a complement to the craving 
of men’s souls? The animal nature is fully satisfied by the 
material things of this world. But the soul has aspirations for 
things beyond this world. It seeks for fellowship with a higher 
realm, spiritual and eternal. It has a capacity and desire for lov- 
ing, trusting, and worshiping a higher being on whom it feels de- 
pendent and whom it would fellowship. As thirst of the body of 
man points to the fact of the existence of water, so certainly 
does the thirst of the soul prove the existence of God; for one 
of these desires is as natural and as universal as the other. And 
when millions of Christians testify that they have found a satis- 
faction for the soul’s desires in a blessed fellowship and com- 
munion with God, who ean consistently deny it? 

6. Objections to the Human-nature Argument.—V arious objec- 
tions are made to this argument; but principally it has been 
eharged with being anthropomorphie, or of ascribing human 
qualities to God. The objection is well represented by Herbert 
Spencer as follows: ‘‘If we make the grotesque supposition that 


EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 69 


the ticking and other movements of a watch constitute a kind of 
consciousness, and that a watch possessed of such a conscious- 
ness insisted on regarding the watchmaker’s action as deter- 
mined, like its own, by springs and escapements, we should 
simply complete a parallel of which religious teachers think 
much. And were we to suppose that a watch not only formu- 
lated the cause of its existence in these mechanical terms, but 
held that watches were bound out of reverence so to formulate 
this cause, and even vituperated as atheistic watches any that 
did not venture so to formulate, we should merely illustrate the 
presumption of theologians by carrying their own argument a 
step further’’ (First Principles of a New Philosophy, pp. 94, 
95). The objection is so well answered by Samuel Harris that 
his reply is here given, and is deemed a sufficient answer: ‘‘ The 
objection rests on the absurdity that, if a watch should become 
endowed with reason, it would still remain a mere machine, just 
as it was before, and therefore would see nothing in itself but 
mechanism, and could ascribe nothing but mechanism to its 
maker. But if a watch were endowed with reason it would no 
longer be a mere machine, but a rational person. ‘Then con- 
templating its own mechanism it would infer, precisely as a 
rational man does in contemplating it, that it had a maker like 
itself in intelligence, but not necessarily like itself in mechan- 
ism. And should this intelligent watch ridicule all intelligent 
watches that believe they were made by an intelligent maker, 
it would be like Mr. Spencer ridiculing intelligent men for be- 
lieving their Creator to be an intelligent being’’ (The Self- 
revelation of God, pp. 434, 4385). 


IV. The Ontological Argument 


1. Statement of the Argument.—The Ontological Argument is 
known as an a priori argument, and is usually made to include 
all argument for the divine existence that does not reason from 
effect to cause, as do those we have heretofore considered. It en- 
deavors to show that the real objective existence of God is in- 
volved in the idea of such a being. Much stress has been placed 
upon it by theistic writers of past centuries, and it is principally 
for this reason it is stated here, rather than because it is com- 
monly regarded now as having value. It has been employed in 
varying forms by many eminent men, including Anselm (to 


70 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


whom the original form of it is attributed), Descartes, Samuel 
Clarke, Kant, and Cousin. As it is representative of the others, 
Anselm’s argument is given following, as stated by Dr. Miley: 
‘“We have the idea of the most perfect being, a being than whom 
a greater or more perfect can not be conceived. This idea in- 
eludes, and must include, actual existence, because actual exist- 
ence is of the necessary content of the idea of the most perfect. 
An ideal being, however perfect in conception, can not answer 
to the idea of the most perfect. Hence we must admit the actual 
existence; for only with this content can we have the idea of the 
most perfect being. This most perfect being is God. Therefore 
God must exist.’’ Or the argument may be stated briefly as 
follows: Because there exists the idea of the most perfect being 
possible, consequently such a being actually and necessarily 
exists. 

2. Theistic Value of the Argument.—The argument is open to 
criticism on the ground that the existence of the idea of a thing 
does not prove the existence of that thing. Certainly the argu- 
ment is not true of all the fantastic forms of which superstitious 
people have had an idea. But it is answered that the idea of 
God is an exception because necessary being must be admitted. 
Whatever theistic value the argument has, it has not been ap- 
parent to many capable thinkers, especially of the present. 
Whether or not its defect can be clearly stated, it certainly is 
not valuable as a proof, and we agree with the large proportion 
of modern theistic writers that it is inconclusive as a proof of 
theism. 


CHAPTER III 
ANTITHEISTIC THEORIES 


Antitheism includes all theories that deny the doctrine of a 
personal God; who is creator, preserver, and ruler of all things. 
It includes atheism, polytheism, pantheism, materialism, and 
materialistic evolution. Materialism might be made to include 
positivism and also naturalistic evolution; but the classification 
here made, by which positivism is included under materialism 
and evolution is treated separately, is thought to be the most 
practical for the majority of readers. In the theistic proofs 
already given, we have sufficient disproof of all these theories; 
therefore the purpose here will be principally to show the ele- 
ments in them opposed to theism. 


I. Atheism 


1. Sense of Atheism.—Atheism is the open and positive denial 
that God exists. It is a pure negation and affirms nothing. It 
is a denial of what theism affirms. Few persons openly profess 
to be atheists because the term itself is one of reproach. Those 
who deny the existence of a personal God usually profess belief 
in an impersonal something as being God. Such persons assign 
to the place of God, thought, force, motion, the ‘‘unknowable,’’ 
the ‘‘infinite absolute,’’ or moral order. Herbert Spencer in 
his ‘‘New Philosophy’’ deifies force, and regards it as unknow- 
able. But such persons in their endeavor to save themselves 
from the disgrace and odium of atheism do violence to the cor- 
rect meaning of the terms ‘‘God’’ and ‘‘atheism.’’ God does 
not mean mere force, and he who allows no other God is an 
atheist, whether he admits it or not. But we will here use 
Atheism in the more restricted sense, and discuss these other 
antitheistic theories separately. 

2. Unreasonableness of Atheism.—Atheism is a most unreason- 
able profession. As much as any man can consistently say is, 
‘‘T do not know there is a God,’’ and this is only antitheistic 
agnosticism. What arrogant presumption on the part of him 
who says ‘‘there is no God’’! How can any one not infinite in 
his capacities know there is no God? Unless one is omnipresent 
—in every place in the universe at the present moment—how 


can he know but that God is somewhere? If he does not fully 
71 


72 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


know every personal being in the universe, how can he know 
but that one with whom he is unacquainted is God? He aryro- 
gates to himself the infinite qualities of God in his denial of 
God. But if he is not infinite in his knowledge of all places, 
times, and causes, how can he say God is not somewhere, that he 
has not been known to act in past ages, or that he has not caused 
certain things? Surely, ‘‘The fool hath said in his heart, There 
is no God!’’ 

3. Possibility of Atheism.—To have doubts about the being of 
God is possible, and certainly many persons have doubted. But 
1t is quite another thing to believe there is no God. To believe 
stedfastly the latter, without doubting, is impossible. So to be- 
lieve would be to free oneseli from the moral law, which can 
not be done, to reject the cause of all things, and practically 
deny all existence, as all existence may ag reasonably be denied 
as that of God. By speculation or otherwise, one may arrive 
at the place where he will temporarily cease to be conscious of 
his belief in God. But with the removal of that speculative in- 
fluence he will naturally revert to conscious belief in God. 


II. Polytheism 

1. Meaning and Origin of Polytheism—Polytheism is from 
two Greek words meaning many gods. According to this theory 
the attributes and activities of the infinite God are distributed 
among many limited gods. The testimony of both the Bible 
and history is that the original religion of mankind was mono- 
theistic, but that at an early date men apostatized from the wor- 
ship of the one true God and began to worship many deities. 
From that time throughout human history polytheism has been 
widely prevalent, and is even at the present. The worship of a 
plurality of gods began in nature worship. Men began to ‘‘serve 
the creature more than the creator.’’ They began to worship 
the various powers of nature with which they came in contact 
and by which they were benefited, especially the sun, moon, 
stars, as well as fire, water, and the air. Then these powers 
- were personified, and later it was assumed that a personal god 
ruled over each. Especially did the common people come to be- 
lieve in the actual existence of these imaginary deities. But 
the more enlightened have usually held either monotheism or 
pantheism. 


ANTITHEISTIC THEORIES 73 


2. Different Aspects of Polytheism.—The character of polythe- 
ism has varied according to the traditions, culture, and other 
influences prevalent among the people practising it. Among 
degraded savages it has degenerated to fetish-worship; with the 
cultured Greeks of the past it was made to express their refined 
humanitarianism by deifying their heroic men; while in India, 
where it originated in pantheistic philosophy, it has been carried 
to great extremes both for number of deities and also for the 
degraded character of many of them. The apostle Paul states 
that in their heathen worship the Gentiles sacrificed to demons 
and not to God (1 Cor. 10:20). It is not inconsistent with the 
known facts of idol-worship, nor with the common usage of the 
term for demons, to say that evil spirits have taken advantage 
of this apostate worship of polytheism and by supernatural mani- 
festations in relation to it have led its devotees to worship them. 
This accounts for the alleged supernatural element in polythe- 
istic religions and in a measure for men’s faith in them. Prob- 
ably the error of polytheism is sufficiently shown by the unity 
displayed in nature, the evil fruits of polytheism, and the posi- 
tive proofs of theism. 

II. Pantheism 

1. Definition of Pantheism.—Pantheism etymologically means 
all is God, or that God is all. But probably it would be unfair 
to the many notable philosophers holding it, to define the theory 
of pantheism in the very literal sense that the pen with which 
these words are written is a part of God or that the book the 
reader holds in his hand is a part of God, yet the idea as repre- 
sented by them seems to be this. Difficulty attends every attempt 
briefly to define pantheism, because it has been held so differ- 
ently in different times and places. To describe its various 
aspects would be to give a history of it. The oldest pantheism 
is that of India, where it has been prevalent for thousands of 
years. It also had a great influence in forming the philosophies 
of Greece. Modern pantheism had its origin shortly after the 
Reformation, with Spinoza, one of its ablest advocates. 

2. Monistic Aspects of Pantheism.—Pantheism is strongly mon- 
istic, affirming there is but one substance. That one substance 
is God. Materialistic pantheism asserts this one substance is 
matter. This is practically atheistic materialism. Idealistic 
pantheism makes that one substance to be mind. But the com- 


74 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


mon sense of mankind rejects such an idea, and even the sup- 
porters of it do not find it possible to act in conformity with 
their theory. The common form of pantheism affirms of that 
one absolute substance that it has two modes of manifestation: 
(1) As thought it is mind. (2) As extension it is matter. Pan- 
theism denies the personality of God, and allows that he comes 
to consciousness only in the thoughts of men or higher created 
orders such as angels. It also denies to God free will and affirms 
all acts are of God and necessary. Some professed pantheists in- 
eonsistently affirm free will; but in its nature pantheism is 
strongly fatalistic. Spinoza consistently held there is no real 
self-determination in the universe. Pantheism requires neces- 
sitated evolution of all things. 

3. Defects of Pantheism.—Pantheism is to be rejected for vari- 
ous reasons. Its fundamental principle of monism, or of but 
a sole substance, is a purely unprovable assumption that is 
contradicted by the facts of nature. Again, it is objectionable 
because it denies that God has intelligence, freedom, and per- 
sonality, and thus it fails to account for the first cause of the 
universe and its marks of design. Also, such an impersonal God 
offers no more than atheism from the religious viewpoint. It 
affords no divine fellowship, no divine person to receive love 
and worship. The God of pantheism can not draw out our 
reverence because we as persons are greater, and also he must be 
identified, not only with all the good in the world, but also with 
all the evil. It offers no kind heavenly Father to awaken in us 
devotion. It also fails to provide any ground for moral obliga- 
tion. Not only in its essential nature, but also as illustrated by 
its history it is but one step removed from atheism. 


IV. Materialism 


1. Antitheistic Character of Materialism.—Materialism denies 
the distinction between matter and mind, affirming that all that 
exists is matter only, and that all phenomena are the actions 
of matter. It affirms that matter is eternal, possessing in itself 
the inherent power to develop all forms of life, including the 
power of thought. Not only does it deny the existence of the 
human spirit as a distinct immaterial entity, but it also neces- 
sarily denies the existence of a spiritual personal God. It is at 
present probably the most prevalent of all the antitheistie theo- 


ANTITHEISTIC THEORIES 75 


ries. It allies itself with science and assumes to be one of the 
‘fassured results of scientific investigation.’’ The materialism 
of modern science is not new, but essentially the same as that of 
Epicurus of ancient times. It has maintained the same general 
antitheistic character throughout modern times whether as devel- 
oped, from Locke’s philosophy, as represented by Hartley or 
Priestley, as held in England or France in the eighteenth cen- 
tury or as later represented in the ‘‘ Positivism’’ of Comte. 

2. Fruitless Attempt to Account for Thought—No two objects 
for thought are so different as mind and matter. Matter we 
know by its properties, but mind only by its phenomena, The 
terms that describe the nature of one are inadequate to describe 
the other. Men have instinctively referred the qualities of mat- 
ter to the substance called matter and the phenomena of mind 
to another and different substance called spirit. Thought and 
feeling are known only through consciousness, but material 
things through sensation. But materialism denies this funda- 
mental distinction between mind and matter that has always 
been the universal belief of mankind. 

Materialism denies that intelligence is the cause of order in 
the world and affirms, on the other hand, that such order is the 
cause of intelligence. With its denial of mind it attempts to 
account for thought as being the result of jarring atoms in the 
brain. It makes all thought to be the result of sensations, <Ac- 
cording to one theory the nerves are started vibrating by a par- 
ticular affection, and this vibration continues along the nerve 
until it reaches the brain. Here it produces a vibratory move- 
ment upon the atoms of the brain, which constitutes sensation. 
By the frequent repetition of such sensations the vibratory 
movement acquires the power of repeating itself spontaneously 
—and behold, thought is the result! But this theory of thought 
is confronted with great difficulties, not the least of which is a 
lack of a unitary agent as a ground for memory. The transitory 
and constantly changing atoms composing the brain fail to pro- 
vide such a unitary agent. Such a theory of thought is to be 
regarded as superficial and unprovable. 

3. Reasoning from Analogy Defective.—By its denial of mind 
as distinct essence, and consequently by disallowing the existence 
of an infinite personal Spirit as creator of all things, material- 
ism is confronted by the necessity of otherwise accounting for 


76 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the existence of the principle of life in living matter. An at- 
tempt is made to account for it by certain analogies. Material- 
ists tell us that as water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen 
and yet the properties of water are not to be found in these ele- 
ments, so likewise living matter is composed of carbonic acid, 
water, and ammonia though the properties of living matter are 
not to be found in those elements. And it is reasoned that as 
nothing is necessary but the combination of its constituent ele- 
ments to form water, so no life principle is necessary to be added 
to the combined elements composing living matter to constitute 
them such. But their attempt at reasoning from analogy is a 
failure, because no analogy exists. Water, being a material sub- 
stance, may be formed by combining its chemical elements; but 
life, intellect, sensibility, and will are not material in their na- 
ture and it is unsound reasoning that assumes they may be de- 
rived from purely material elements. 

Again, materialists attempt to reason by analogy from the 
conservation of forces, and because physical forces are convert- 
ible that physical forces may be converted into thought. The 
sum of physical forces is always the same. They may be 
changed from one form to another, but never diminished or in- 
creased. Motion produces heat, and that heat is sufficient to pro- 
duce motion equal in amount to that which produces the heat. 
Further, it is assumed that these same laws apply to mental 
forces. Then it is reasoned that as heat may be converted to 
motion, so motion may be converted to thought and vitality. 
But again the materialist’s argument fails of proof because of 
its lack of analogy. It fails to prove that thought is produced 
by motion. When materialistic scientists go into their labora- 
tories and by combining carbonic acid, water, and ammonia 
produce a living organism and demonstrate with it that by the 
motion of atoms thought is produced, then their reasoning from 
analogy may be taken seriously. 

Every argument heretofore given in proof of theism is an 
argument against materialism. That the material world is the 
product of intelligence and will is reasonable, but how absurd. 
is the materialists’ theory that these are the product of matter 
and motion! Tyndall said, ‘‘The passage from the physics of 
the brain to the corresponding facts of consciousness is unthink- 
able. Granted that a definite thought and a definite molecular 


ANTITHEISTIC THEORIES 17 


action in the brain occur simultaneously: we do not possess the 
intellectual organ, nor apparently any rudiment of the organ, 
which would enable us to pass, by a process of reasoning, from 
the one phenomenon to the other.’’ Materialism has all the 
defects charged against pantheism as far as religion is concerned. 
It denies to man’s spirit a proper object of worship. Also in 
denying free will it denies the reality of morality and moral 
obligation. 
V. Naturalistic Evolution 

The subject of naturalistic evolution might well have been 
discussed under the preceding heading, Materialism, except for 
the fact that it is so widely prevalent and so distinct as a theory 
as to deserve separate treatment. It is true that some natural- 
istic evolutionists, including one so prominent as Huxley, repu- 
diate the charge of materialism ; but it is not because they believe 
in a distinction between matter and mind, but rather because 
they deny the reality of both matter and spirit ag being any- 
thing of which we may have any real knowledge and admit 
them only as imaginary grounds for phenomena. Or they 
sometimes attempt to deny the charge of materialism, by an 
appeal to a new definition of matter as inclusive of mind. In 
the ordinary sense of the term ‘‘matter,’’ naturalistic evolution 
is materialistic. But whether it is regarded as materialistic or 
not, it is certainly antitheistic, and should be discussed in con- 
nection with antitheistic theories as such. Evolution as a theory 
will be dealt with in the proper place. Here the only purpose 
is a criticism of the antitheistic aspect of the theory. 

1. Evolution Hypothesis.—Briefly stated, the theory of evolu- 
tion is that all nature, inorganic and organic, or non-living and 
living, has been developed from a lower or simpler form by the 
agency of forces resident in that simpler form. The theory 
assumes to account for the present orderly formations of the 
earth from primitive nebule, and also for the formation and 
movements of all the heavenly bodies from the same form of 
matter and by means of resident forces. This is the nebular 
hypothesis of Laplace, but it is incorporated as a part of the 
evolutionary theory in its broadest aspect. In its narrower 
sense, the evolution theory attempts to account for the various 
species of plant and animal life on the theory that the present 
species have been evolved from lower species principally by a 


78 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


process called natural selection, or the ‘‘survival of the fittest’’ 
in the struggle for existence. 

The evolutionary hypothesis now so popular is of compara- 
tively modern origin. Though Lamark published evolutional 
views as early as 1801 and evolution was hinted at by others still 
earlier, yet the subject received but little attention until the 
publication, in 1859, of the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin. 
Darwin was seconded by A. R. Wallace, and his main theory 
was supported by such early evolutionists as Huxley, Haeckel, 
Hooker, and especially Herbert Spencer, one who contributed 
probably as much to the theory as did Darwin. Since that time 
the theory has been widely advocated in varying forms. In its 
beginning it was to a great extent atheistic, like its supporters; 
and it has continued to the present to maintain generally athe- 
istic tendencies. 

In the consideration of the evolution theory two questions 
arise. The first is the question as to the actuality of origin of 
species by means of evolution. The second question is concern- 
ing the cause or law of such evolution if it is actual. Concern- 
ing the first, evolutionists suppose that eons ago the first proto- 
plasmic cell originated, under favorable conditions, in an en- 
vironment of sea-water. Through long geological periods, it is 
said, these cells very slowly but gradually developed, by means 
of inherent forces, into all the varied forms of life that have 
appeared upon the earth. The ancestor of man, and of the ape 
(for it is commonly supposed that the ape is not man’s parent 
but his cousin), it is said, appeared probably about sixty million 
years ago as one type of organism of the many that had been 
developed from the first life. Through change of environment 
and conditions of life, it is affirmed, man in his present high 
form has been evolved. But let it be remembered that this is 
only a ‘‘scientific’’ hypothesis or theory. It has not been proved, 
nor is it known actually to have taken place. True science re- 
gards it as being only a theory, and as long as many scientists 
deny it as being proved and actual, certainly theology should not 
build greatly upon it. What science demands of religion we 
may as properly demand of it, that it do not build on the imagi- 
native and pure assumptions. 

Regarding the cause of this evolutionary change a variety of 
opinions have been advanced by those who assume evolution as 


ANTITHEISTIC THEORIES 79 


a reality. Environment has been much stressed as a cause and 
sexual selection hag received much attention, but natural selee- 
tion, which may be defined by the much used phrase coined by 
Herbert Spencer, ‘‘the survival of the fittest,’’ is the most gen- 
erally assumed cause. According to this theory, in the struggle 
for existence in times of stress the weaker die and the stronger 
members of species survive and propagate a higher type of their 
species. This is believed to be a fair representation of the 
theory as held by evolutionists. It is worthy of notice that im- 
provement of species is the result of a law of selfishness, and if 
mankind generally should come to obey the Golden Rule, which 
is doubtless the highest principle of duty dictated by men’s 
moral reason and most conducive to the happiness of those who 
observe it, then man will cease to evolve. The tendency to help 
the weak, to build hospitals, infirmaries, and asylums, and to 
conduct many other forms of benevolent work must certainly 
result in the eventual retrogression of the human species to one 
as low or lower than the ape. How strange that the welfare of 
the race should require the abnegation of the noblest sentiments 
it has ever known! Surely: the mere statement of such a theory 
is sufficient refutation. of it. 

2. Naturalistic and Theistic Evolution.—It is proper and a mat- 
ter of fairness in view of what will be stated later to make a 
distinction between theories of evolution. They may be divided 
into two main classes—naturalistic and theistic. Naturalistic 
evolution disallows any divine creative work in the formation 
of the universe but refers all to nature and forces resident in it. 
Theistic evolution admits a supernatural element or divine 
operation either at the beginning of the process or superintend- 
ing it throughout. It agrees with naturalistic evolution as to 
the question of the fact of evolution, but differs radically with 
the naturalistic theory concerning the cause of that assumed 
evolution of the various forms of life. Theistic evolutionists 
differ as to the nature and extent of the divine operation in the 
imagined evolutionary process. One class assumes divine crea- 
tions of the first life, of man’s body, and of man’s soul at the 
proper points in the process. Others regard evolution as God’s 
method of creating, instead of by definite fiats, and assume that 
he constantly superintends such development and that it is not 
by mere natural forces. A third view, which might be called 


80 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


semitheistic, is that God vitahzed a few simple forms at the 
beginning and that from these have evolved, by forces of nature 
alone, all other forms that have appeared. This is essentially 
the view of Darwin. 

Theistic evolution may somewhat modify the proofs of theism 
but in no sense does it weaken them. That Being who ean 
directly effect the marvelous forms of nature by a process of 
development under divine supervision, or who can create simple 
organisms and endow them with power to evolve the highly 
organized species of the present time, is certainly just as real 
and as truly personal as any conception of him can be. There- 
fore inasmuch as it leaves the positive argument for theism in 
all its strength, theistic evolution need not be considered further 
in a discussion of antitheistic theories. However, it may be 
said that even theistic evolution is objectionable to true religion, 
because (1) it is contradictory to the Bible record of creation; 
(2) it is false to the true sense of divine providence; (3) it 
usually disallows many of the great fundamentals of true re- 
ligion such as the fall of man, original sin, and redemption; (4) 
to whatever extent evolution as being a fact is unproved, it is a 
mere speculative theory unworthy of the wide influence in re- 
ligion its abettors accord to it; and (5) as has been demonstrated 
by its history from its beginning, its tendency is constantly to 
gravitate to the antitheistic and antireligious. 

The purely naturalistic theory of evolution is, in its nature, 
antitheistic. To disallow a divine element in creation is to dis- 
allow God; for if God is not creator, what is he? And what 
rightful claim does he have on us for worship and obedience to 
his law? If he created us, we owe him love and loyalty; but if 
he has no such claim upon us, his requirements are nothing 
short of injustice and he ig a usurper. Naturalistic evolution 
is not only antitheistic but also antireligious, if religion is de- 
fined in any real sense. In its denial of God it necessarily denies 
the real divinity of Christ and divine revelation in the Scerip- 
tures. In rejecting a divine creation of man it makes him a 
purely material being void of a supersensuous soul; it disallows 
man’s fall, depravity, redemption, divine providence, the pro- 
priety of prayer and worship, and, if it is consistent, life after 
death. Consequently its supporters deny the divine element in 
the Bible, the virgin birth and divinity of Christ, supernatural 


ANTITHEISTIC THEORIES 81 


conversion, miracles, and hope of happiness after death, and 
instead advocate an antisupernatural social religion that looks 
only to the affairs that concern this life. Probably most of the 
modern antitheism allies itself with this naturalistic evolution. 

3. Difficulties of Naturalistic Evolution—Insoluble perplexities 
confront the naturalistic theory of evolution at very important 
points in its supposed process. Its supporters may say science 
is not obligated to assign original causes; but it may be properly 
answered that reason does ask for a first cause and that natural- 
istic evolution, in attempting to meet the requirements of reason, 
has assigned as cause what it can not prove to be an adequate 
cause, and with its failure to explain certain problems confront- 
ing it, reason must reject it. 

(1) It Fails to Account for the Fire-mist—The theory of 
naturalistic evolution begins with the nebula, or fire-mist, and 
the perplexities of the theory begin there, too. It undertakes to 
build the whole structure of organic creation on the nebular 
hypothesis. Evolution is an unproved theory based upon another 
unproved theory. It is much given to assumptions. Religion 
has been charged with depending upon tradition and assump- 
tion, but even if these charges could be proved the assumptions 
of religion would not be nearly so unreasonable as the assump- 
tions of this theory that is supported in the name of science. 
It assumes that the present orderly universe once existed in its 
entirety, both its matter and also its force, in a fiery cloud. This 
is the only material it allows itself out of which to evolve all 
the high and complex forms of existence in the universe, even 
including man himself. According to the theory this wonderful 
mist went to work and, without any guiding intelligence, formed 
out of itself the sidereal universe, embracing suns with planets and 
satellites all representing wonderful exactness of balance and 
motion and on at least one of those planets, by wonderful 
arrangement, such as one would naturally suppose only an in- 
telligent mind capable of, made conditions suitable to living 
organisms. But this was only a beginning, This same mist, in 
its new form, without any aid from any other source whatsoever 
and possessing no other materials, energy, or directing power 
than that which at first inhered in that primitive fire-mist, con- 
tinued its astonishing activity by originating out of itself living 
plants and animals in all their complexities, and, not stopping 


§2 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


at this remarkable achievement, it formed itself into man and 
endowed itself with personality—intellect, sensibility, and will. 
Then it began to think, to feel, and to volitionate. In its new 
human form this remarkable mist began to reason out philos- 
ophies, to develop fine arts, to produce civilizations and litera- 
tures, to build vast empires, to make wonderful inventions, to 
develop religion and theology (which it later discovered was all 
wrong), and under the name of science to investigate concerning 
the nature of itself, and, behold, it made the disappointing dis- 
covery that it was nothing but-a modified form of fire-mist! In 
human form it had supposed it was made in the image of God, 
and that Jesus Christ, its noblest representative, of unimpeach- 
able character and spotless conduct, was God incarnate; but it 
learned he also was only fire-mist! 

Such is exactly what the theory of naturalistic evolution as- 
sumes for the primitive fire-mist, and it dare not allow the opera- 
tion of any outside influence, else it loses its naturalistic char- 
acter. Appropriating the words of Tyndall when urging for a 
new definition of matter, ‘‘Surely the mere statement of such 
a notion is more than a refutation. But the hypothesis would 
probably go even farther than this. Many who hold it would 
probably assent to the position that, at the present moment, all 
our philosophy, all our poetry, all our science, and all our art 
—Plato, Shakespeare, Newton, and Raphael—are potential in 
the fires of the sun. We long to learn something of our origin. 
If the evolution hypothesis be correct, even this unsatisfied yearn- 
ing must have come to us across the ages which separate the 
unconscious primeval mist from the consciousness of today. I 
do not think that any holder of the evolution hypothesis would 
say that I overstate or overstrain it in any way. I merely strip 
it of all vagueness, and bring it before you, unclothed and un- 
varnished, the notions by which it must stand or fall. Surely 
these notions represent an absurdity too monstrous to be enter- 
tained by any sane mind’’ (Fragments of Science, pp. 453, 454). 

But even if reason would allow the entertaining of the idea 
just described, the naturalistic evolutionist has the responsibility 
of showing the source of this fire-mist. Science may assume it 
as primordial, but reason is insistent on having an account of 
the source of this wonderful mist. If it be said it is eternal, then 
the question arises, Why did it not ever remain fire-mist? What 


ANTITHEISTIC THEORIES 83 


caused it to change when it did? If its nature was to change, 
why did it not change before it did? And assuming their absurd 
theory to be true and that our evolutionist friends were present 
as careful observers throughout the process of development from 
that primitive change in the nebula until the present, how could 
they prove that no unseen, spiritual, and personal power was 
thus operating through nature? Here is another insurmountable 
obstacle to naturalistic evolution. With its failure to account 
for the origin of the universe, naturalistic evolution fails as a 
disproof of theism. 

(2) It Fails to Account for the Origin of Infe.—In, addition 
to its failure to explain the source of the assumed primitive fire- 
mist, and the cause of its early operation, naturalistic evolution 
finds another great difficulty in attempting to show the origin 
of the first life. In its nature it can not allow divine interposi- 
tion at this point, as does theistic evolution. All that is, must 
have sprung entirely from that primitive fire-mist, according to 
the theory. But inasmuch as life could not have existed in the 
fire-mist because of the intense heat, then the first life must have 
come as a result of spontaneous generation. The theory requires 
spontaneous generation, or life from the non-living. A few sup- 
porters of the theory have endeavored to evade the difficulties 
of spontaneous generation by assuming, like Sir William Thomp- 
son, that the first life came to this planet on a meteorite from 
another planet! But except a divine creator is admitted, the 
difficulty of spontaneous generation is merely tranferred to an- 
other place, but not explained. Even Haeckel, rash as he was, 
rejected this theory. The assumption of abiogenesis, or life from 
the non-living, is the common course of naturalistic evolution- 
ists at this point. But the gulf that separates between life and 
lifeless matter is wide and deep and has never been known to 
be crossed. Any crossing of this impassable gulf is a mere con- 
jecture of those who deny God. That such is true is admitted 
by Huxley, who was himself a strong supporter of abiogenesis, 
and who for this reason as well as because of his expert know]- 
edge of all the facts is an important authority. ‘‘The fact is, 
that at the present moment there is not a shadow of trustworthy 
direct evidence that abiogenesis does take place, or has taken 
place, within the period during which the existence of life on 
the globe is recorded’’ (Encyclopedia Britannica, ‘‘Biology’’). 


84 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


That such assumption was the method of Haeckel, another promi- 
nent advocate of abiogenesis, is shown by the following: ‘‘ Here 
I will say only a few words on the obscure question ag to the 
origin of the first life... . In the definite limited sense in which 
I maintain spontaneous generation and assume it as a necessary 
hypothesis. ... This assumption is required by the demand of 
the human understanding for causality’’ (Evolution of Man, 
Vol. II, pp. 30, 31). After admitting that it is an obscure ques- 
tion, he attempts to reason that because the human understand- 
ing demands causality therefore the first life must have been by 
abiogenesis, a thing contradictory to both reason and experience! 
By a similar method but, if possible, by a still more illogical 
process, Huxley, after admitting no instance of abiogenesis has 
ever been known, attempts by deduction to prove it has occurred 
by reasoning that ‘‘if the hypothesis of evolution is true, living 
matter must have arisen from not-living matter.’’ But such rea- 
son is no more proof than to say ‘‘if it is then it is.’’ His argu- 
ment proves nothing. He assumes naturalistic evolution and 
then attempts to deduce abiogenesis as being a fact from that 
assumption, as if assumption could possibly furnish proof of a 
fact. 

That the failure to find proof of spontaneous generation is 
fatal to naturalistic evolution is shown by the efforts of its advo- 
cates to produce such evidence. Haeckel supposes the first forms 
of life, which he ealls monera, were of the nature of a slime 
formed in an environment of sea-water by an accidental com- 
bination of certain chemicals in proper proportions for its pro- 
duction. On the ground of this theory many scientists attempted 
for years to generate life by chemical processes, but without 
avail. A certain writer mentions an instance of one scientist who 
caused widespread interest by the announcement that he had 
generated life from the non-living, in a sealed bottle, after he 
had first destroyed all life in it, as he supposed, by applying 
heat to it. But the falsity of the claim was later manifested 
when more careful scientists made similar tests but used more 
thorough measures for the extinction of life in the sealed bottle, 
with the result that no life was generated. Huxley said on this 
subject of present attempts to generate life from inorganic mat- 
ter: ‘‘It may be stated as a well-based induction, that the more 
careful the investigator, and the more complete his mastery over 


ANTITHEISTIC THEORIES 85 


the endless practical difficulties which surround experimentation 
on this subject, the more certain are his experiments to give a 
negative result; while positive results are no less sure to crown 
the efforts of the clumsy and ecareless’’ (Encyclopedia Britan- 
nica, ‘‘Biology’’). No spontaneous generation of life has ever 
yet been known to occur, and it is reasonable to believe that it 
never will occur. It is a well-recognized fact with science that 
life comes only from life. In the words of that great scientist 
Louis Pasteur, ‘‘In the present state of knowledge the doctrine 
of spontaneous generation is a chimera’’ (Pasteur and His 
Work, p. 62). 

(3) It Fails to Account for Man’s Body.—The failure of 
evolution to prove spontaneous generation of life from the non- 
living is weakening to the theory. The failure of proof of the 
theory at a point so vital to it is reason enough for asking that 
it give proof of other important points on which it rests. Espe- 
cially is proof demanded that man is evolved from the lower 
animals. The theory requires that he was so evolved. But if 
a theistic cause is allowed for animal life, then who can say that 
divine intervention may not be the cause of man, both body and 
spirit? Man differs from all lower animals, not only in the 
high grade of his mental powers, but also in bodily form and 
stature. This wide difference between man and lower animals 
can not be allowed to have resulted from a sudden leap, because 
the evolution theory requires very gradual changes. The theory 
requires, then, that there must have been literally millions of 
transitional forms that lived during millions of years leading 
up to man from that early animal ancestor of men and apes, or 
to the man-ape as others suppose. If these transitional forms or 
links between men and animals ever lived upon the earth, as 
evolution assumes, there would necessarily be many traces of 
them in fossilized skeletal remains in the geological strata formed 
during or since the time they lived, as there are of animals of 
the earlier periods. Remains of animals are found in large num- 
bers; but of these supposed intermediate forms between men 
and animals, of which there must have been very many both of 
kinds and number, not one can be found. Thoughtful minds 
may therefore consistently doubt whether they ever existed. 

That such remains have not been found, and also that man 
does not bear marks of having been descended from the ape or 


86 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


other lower animal, is declared as follows by James D. Dana, 
one of the most eminent of geologists and also for some time 
professor of natural history in Yale University: ‘‘The interval 
between the monkey and man is one of the greatest. The capac- 
ity of the brain in the lowest of men is 68 cubic inches, while 
that in the highest man ape is but 34. Man is erect in posture, 
and has this erectness marked in the form and position of all 
his bones, while the man ape has his inclined posture forced 
on him by every bone of his skeleton. The highest of man apes 
ean not walk, except for a few steps, without holding on by his 
fore limbs; and, instead of having a double curvature in his 
back like man, which well-balanced erectness requires, he has but 
one. The connecting links between man and any man ape of 
past geological time have not been found, although earnestly 
looked for. No specimen of the stone age that has yet been dis- 
covered is inferior, as already remarked, to the lowest of exist- 
ing men; and none is intermediate in essential characters be- 
tween man and the man ape. The present teaching of geology 
very strongly confirms the belief that man is not of nature’s 
making. Independently of such evidence, man’s high reason, 
his unsatisfied aspirations, his free-will, all afford the fullest 
assurance that he owes his existence to the special act of the 
Infinite Being whose image he bears’’ (Geological Story, pp. 
289, 290). 

It is true that certain fossil remains have been discovered 
which have been hailed as examples of these supposed inter- 
mediate forms; but when carefully examined by experts these 
have not proved to be such. Notable examples of these are the 
Engis and Neanderthal skulls. The former was found by Pro- 
fessor Schmerling in a cave in the valley of the Meuse, in Bel- 
gium, and the latter in a cave near Dusseldorf. These had been 
carried into the caves by water, where they were found among 
other fossils that are supposed to belong to a past geological 
period. But having been brought together by such a process, it 
is a great question whether their relation to those other fossils 
proves that the men to whom they belonged lived at the same 
period as the animals among whose remains they were found. 
But whatever may have been their date, that they do not prove 
what they are often supposed to prove is evident from the state- 
ment of Thomas Huxley, who was a leading naturalistic evolu- 


ANTITHEISTIC THEORIES 87 


tionist, and also a very high authority in anatomy. Of the Engis 
skull he says, ‘‘Its measurements agree equally well with those 
of some European skulls. And assuredly, there is no mark of 
degradation about any part of its structure. It is in fact, a 
fair average human skull, which might have belonged to a philos- 
opher, or might have contained the thoughtless brains of a 
savage’’ (Man’s Place in Nature, p. 205). He describes the 
Neanderthal skull ag having a brain capacity of 75 cubic inches, 
or that of the average Polynesian or Hottentot skull. He says 
it is of a lower type of man than the Engis skull, but that it is 
nevertheless of a man. ‘‘In no sense, then, can the Neanderthal 
bones be regarded as the remaing of a human being intermediate 
between men and apes’’ (Ibid., p. 206). 

Other fossils that have been regarded by evolutionists as of 
special value to their theory are the Trinil man and the Dawn 
man of Dawson. But only small and disconnected parts of 
these have been found, which, being altogether too meager to 
eonstitute proof in a matter so important, fail to prove that 
intermediate forms between men and man-apes one time existed. 
That the point is still an open question is evident from the fol- 
lowing statement by Dr. John Seliskar (Professor of Psychology 
at the St. Paul Seminary), as quoted by Dr. Arvid Reuterdahl 
(President, Ramsey Institute of Technology, St. Paul, Minne- 
sota), under ‘‘International Science Briefs’’ in the Dearborn In- 
dependent of July 21, 1923: ‘‘The direct evidences so far ad- 
vanced in proof of the animal descent of man, are not of the 
character to create, after unbiased investigation, a conviction 
that would satisfy an unbiased mind. The anthropitheko and 
the homosimians, reconstructed from fragmentary skeletal re- 
mains, have not always been treated with kindness by members 
of the scientific profession. The so-called Trinil man (githe- 
canthropus erectus), discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1891, is 
classified in three different ways by archeologists. One group 
considers him entirely human, another altogether simian [ape] 
and a third as homosimian. The Dawn man of Dawson, un- 
earthed in England, has in his reconstructed form served as a 
model of the ape-man. Arthur Keith, of the British Museum, 
examined the physiognomy and discovered that the cranium and 
jaw do not belong together, as the space for a pharynx is almost 
obliterated (‘‘ Antiquity of Man,’’ p. 395). Dr. George C. 


88 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


McCurdy, of Yale University, has arrived at the conclusion that 
the two parts do not belong to the same individual (Science, 
February 18, 1916). The cranium is human, possessing the 
eapacity of 1,390 cubic centimeters, as calculated by Arthur 
Keith; and the jaw once belonged to a chimpanzee. The com- 
bination should make a number one ape-man. The Neanderthal 
man is the subject of similar controversies. The transformists 
have not yet succeeded in discovering a genuine specimen of 
ape-man. The claim that the evolution of man has been placed 
beyond the realm of controversy~is in no way justified. Science 
boasts of accepting only tangible evidence as the source of in- 
formation. If the boast is true, assertions not so substantiated 
should not be made in the name of science.’’ 

With no examples of the actual existence of fossil remains 
of intermediate forms between man and an animal ancestor, and 
with no marks of gradation or of an ascending scale among the 
various ape families, the principal attempts at proof of man’s 
erigin from lower animals fail. There is really no proof that 
man’s organic nature is. a result of evolution. 

(4) It Fails to Account for the Origin of Mind.—Insoluble 
difficulties confront naturalistic evolution, as has been shown 
in its attempts to account for the primordial fire-mist, the origin 
of the first life, and the origin of man’s organic nature. A 
fourth difficulty is in accounting for the origin of man’s mind 
from matter which was originally fire-mist. Only that can be 
evolved which has first been involved. Nothing can arise out of 
matter not primordially in it. Mind is a faculty of the soul, 
which is a spiritual essence and is different in its very nature 
from material things. Material facts or phenomena will not 
combine with mental facts or phenomena. Reason will not com- 
bine with figure or form; thought will not admit of being mea- 
sured in feet and inches. These are different in their nature 
and belong to entirely different spheres of being. 

That the difficulty here referred to is real is shown by the 
fact that evolutionists themselves have conceded that matter can 
not be the ground of mental facts. Tyndall, himself an evolu- 
tionist, comments on this point as follows: ‘‘For what are the 
core and essence of this hypothesis? Strip it naked, and you 
stand face to face with the notion that not alone the more ignoble 
forms of animalcular or animal life, not alone the noble forms 


ANTITHEISTIC THEORIES 89 


of the horse and lion, not alone the exquisite and wonderful 
mechanism of the human body, but that the mind itself—emo- 
tion, intellect, will, and all their phenomena—were once latent 
in a fiery cloud. Surely the mere statement of such a notion is 
more than a refutation.’’ ‘‘These evolution notions are absurd, 
monstrous, and fit only for the intellectual gibbet, in relation 
to the ideas concerning matter which were drilled into us when 
young’’ (Fragments of Science, pp. 453, 454). Tyndall here 
contends for a new definition of matter so that it may furnish 
a ground for mental facts; but a change of definition of matter 
would make no change in matter itself. Such a method does 
_ not relieve the difficulty of evolutionists in their efforts to show 
an evolution of mind from matter. 

Even though we were credulous enough to accept the theory 
of the evolutionists that a primordial fire-mist, or matter as we 
see it today, could transform itself into mind, yet another and 
still greater difficulty must be met, viz., how did that which had 
always hitherto been governed by fixed mechanical laws become 
independent of such laws and acquire free-will? It is evident 
that man has the power to choose his course of conduct. Neces- 
sity can not contradict itself by creating the free. The fact is 
that naturalistic evolution can give no adequate account of the 
origin of free will. Neither can it account adequately for con- 
science in man, which is grounded upon free will. These funda- 
mental qualities of the spiritual man must be accounted for; 
and upon the failure of naturalistic evolution to account for 
them in man, it can not stand. 


60 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


contrivance in nature are countless. They may be found on 
every hand. They may be seen in the movements of the vast 
planets far away in the starry sky and also in every minute 
insect on the earth. In all the realm of inorganic nature they are 
to be found, as well as in every plant that grows. And again, 
they may be found in large numbers in each of the millions of 
bodies of both animals and men. They appear, not only in single 
organs, but in the relation of organs to each other. Evidences 
of design are also apparent in the adaptations of the world to 
the life of plants and animals, and of the organs of animals to 
their instincts. Limited space excludes an extended exhibition 
of examples of design in nature, but those here given will serve 
at least as an indication of the nature of the evidence. 

The remarkable operation of an intricate machine often fills 
a thoughtful person with wonder, and he is impressed with the 
far-seeing design and intelligence of its inventor. But how 
much more wonderful is the human body, and how much more 
does it show design! What machine is so perfect in its mechan- 
ism and operation as is this one? All its parts, organs, and fune- 
tions are nicely adjusted to each other. It repairs its defective 
parts while in operation, and generates its own energy. But it 
is through definite concrete examples that the most vivid impres- 
sion of design in nature is received. 

If the intricate lens of a camera manifests design, how much 
more does the eye? Their general principles are similar; but 
how much more perfect is the eye than the lens of a camera! 
It is not an opening in the head, nor a mere nerve center such 
as one might suppose from what some evolutionists say in at- 
tempting an evolutionary theory of its origin. It has a lid asa 
means of protecting the tender ball, and that ld moves with 
wonderful quickness. The ball is not set immovable in its socket, 
but has muscles so attached to it that it can be turned in all 
directions of the field of vision. Again, the structure of the 
eyeball is wonderfully adapted to the hight, and to the function 
of seeing. The opening to the lens is contracted or enlarged, in 
adjustment to the amount of light falling upon the retina, by a 
most delicate arrangement of muscles that are not dependent 
upon the will, but on the stimulus of the light itself. The lens 
itself is capable of such exact adjustment that the rays of light 
are refracted in such a manner as to bring them to a proper 


EVIDENCES OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 61 


focus on the retina. Spread out on this retina is the only nerve 
in the body susceptible of light and color. These are but a few 
of the evidences of design in the structure of the eye. As cer- 
tainly as design may be seen in any human contrivance, it may 
be seen in this wonderful organ. But what unthinking credulity 
must that be which would rather attribute the intricate wonders 
of the eye to chance, or another non-intelligent cause! And if 
it be objected that the eye, with all its wonders, may be the re- 
sult of evolution, it is not necessary to argue the point, but only 
to say in reply: Then how far-seeing and intelligent must have 
been the designer to implant the power to effect by a process of 
evolution that wonderful organ as we now know it. 

Likewise the ear is not a mere opening into the head, but a 
very delicate and complicated device for catching sound-waves 
and producing the sensation of hearing by means of the auditory 
nerve. It is a far more wonderful mechanism than that ex- 
hibited in a telephone or radiophone receiving instrument; and 
as they bear undeniable evidence of design by man, so does this 
much more of a designing creator. If space would allow, proofs 
of design might be shown in various other organs, as of digestion, 
reproduction, the heart, the lungs, the nerves, and in the bones, 
muscles, and skin, which are all wonderfully adapted to their 
use. But these have been exhaustively discussed by many able 
writers, to whom those are referred who would pursue this phase 
of the subject farther (see Natural Theology [Paley]. Bridge- 
water Treatises. Natural Theology [Fisher] ). 

Not only in single organs is design shown, but also in the 
relation of organs to each other and to the conditions under 
which the animal is to live. The fish, suited to live in the water, 
as shown by his gills, has also fins and tail adapted to swimming, 
as is also the shape of its body. The bird with wings suitable 
for flying in the air has also hollow bones and feathers, which 
make flight possible. The bird with long legs for wading in the 
water has also a long neck. And the bird that floats on the 
water has feathers impenetrable by water, and web-feet. Even 
man, with a mind superior to all other animals and capable of 
wonderful contriving, has also an upright body and a hand cap- 
able of executing all the mind contrives. Man’s hand is far 
better adapted to work than is the hand of any species of ape. 
In fact, the human hand is so remarkable in its mechanism that 


| 1 
Phan 


i 















4 “t | ve ue iy y i, oy! A 
j We of ei : it : H yi) " . A Oh V4 
By iy COR a RSE AMR Sa ake pone Ri ae San 
ee, hae / meh ‘ 
BN) ay A KAS ua, i Wi Hine 5 cae Lan 


‘Pip eA mv ‘ae Ahi HA, i dai A phooee have sis oh if aa ih ma bone ont tan 1s 


aaa a ai 


' > ‘igi an f I 
« ' ' hee 4 Wes LA) pt 
i ’ Nil yp th i a Nd hy ah i Wy oD aT i 5 el vi ir v Yi i! Le " 


1 
= Ve a cs oY ; tat 
it 1, Pe WT eater Poe : Ut, Fm ’ Ae ! 
\ Oy A 4 ; te Paes t ATU | js 
The ’ ‘ . qi ‘ite aye oe th ’ Toe A $ t in’ 8 Risa ce Dt ' iv fap a nAe 
‘ an” Has : ; ' ’ ; \ Sale 
A ; i ‘ : : ‘ " y 's y al 
y € | ; hae 
We +‘ 1 an Gk eh a wii pay Ta oy PCa A ait 
: , 4 i ‘ th 
, id PP 4 ih. ‘ \ 7 ° y 
a7 ‘ in i ea) Oi i A 74 44 BUN ly ft 
' | A { 7 MA ah v , ay 
A a f { ir | ree | 
‘ Ai ‘ 4 rs. ; { A ‘A ‘i aie %y ? 
1 AN ae ee ee et hay. Pas ty Leta A Val 0 } 
; . ve ;™ ; : + ing 
j ‘ r cf yEns Whee ‘ a Ne 
me | ; ve ih i h woe } a A 
‘i isi i ‘ f ae ' rire, 
n+ i i : a; , .4 
‘ ; i 7 ' f A : 2 & ee ee a ye 41 , .>s 
4 { ’ 
f ; ¥ ‘ 4! Fe : _ ; NN ni 
' UN Rate : rates Pe ee, ets ‘70% Pht = Wee P F : ae rae Ae Bs 
yee Dak ~~ : aR) Ai 7 Pa } Ww. ve FTE +h <4 ' a Mi ta 
J vat : i " ’ : ny an Mae ai by . \ ; ve We ; 4 hay 
. TR APRA LO fd eR ert Oa yO i ee i, Mi) a? 40! 
A 4 i ret eos ray } i Bs 4 e nA i 4 
me s + oun PA re ted he nf vat *, ; Ae ’ i 
, ® i>, ; Lf f, : ‘, - a De , ont Te wu eT +2}, eal hy 1 4 if py H af By wp? n,) < 
\ Ve i ‘ f : 1 ; Yet ae) 4 By thd . 
: \ i + ; 4 t J J r 4 ‘ 
; ¥ : LM o ‘ 4 " vf ee Pee | 
‘ . ‘ , ) Se y : | y ® a) “J 4 
‘ ' att " ‘ eee Mery a CF ad SOS Aa ee ant nd dp oie pa aie j re | . i ae 
fo 4 vy ( ih id ATO i te 
; 
4 & 
( z 
t 
i 
‘ 
t 
| 4 
PEN 
oak | 5%, 
j ee it 
i 
§ Sf iy i 
i 
f we ety 
Tra ; 
; I , f 
Ay f ryatuse Peis ' y 
4 ( MBean aa An 
ie his é 
Chg 7 | } 
j A Xd) Vina’ 
A A 
* ONE. : uy) 
1 ren ita 
‘Ww 7 Mw ] 
L? NV a i ¥ 
way -* ¥ j iy) 
‘ ¥, ] | ¥ Ui Wie 
a Wel oT 
by hh aq rhe \ Ch y 
Ht rhe Jf 
eee eth 
ay Met \ 
at : F Th ty) 
aa y * { 4 f 
t A as 
ee bp 
Lyf i 
j i, 
i } ) : } \ 
' ' 8 Pe] 
* 7 ‘eee ty y 
I , (Vs ri hk , 
ry Papell ro) “hf 5 : 
oe st ae ng 
i oe) ah i bt 
Lan bh ie : 
Ai a7 1 
| Maes. ; 
j \ (elon iy i i 4 Ri 
Pil hls | v i) as : 
ies 
la 


PART II 


EVIDENCES OF DIVINE REVELATION 
OR APOLOGETICS 


94 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


of the most vital concern to every man. No one can consistently 
be indifferent about them. Even the most devout Christian, 
though ever so well satisfied in his own heart that the Bible is 
God’s Word, ought, nevertheless, to be familiar with the evi- 
dences of that truth he so unquestioningly accepts. One may 
believe the truth because he has been taught it by others; but 
it is better that he shall be ‘‘able to give a reason’”’ for his belief. 
Without a reason he may easily become prey to skepticism, if 
he should come in contact with such influences. Others are con- 
vinced of the truth because of the power of Christianity mir- 
aculously manifested in their own hearts in Christian experi- 
ence. This is doubtless tha very best of proof and most direct. 
But such evidences alone will not enable one successfully to de- 
fend his belief against the subtle arguments of the infidel, and 
sometimes will not even save him from a considerable amount of 
intellectual confusion. The Christian ought to be thoroughly 
familiar with the facts that support his most holy faith. Such 
knowledge will strengthen his convictions, and keep him from be- 
ing easily led astray. It will increase his confidence and strength- 
en him for service. It will enable him better to propagate the 
truth and to convince others. It will give him much pleasure to 
know the many infallible proofs of the divine authority of the 
Seriptures. In view of these advantages, it may properly be said 
it is the duty of every Christian to study the evidences of Chris- 
tianity. 

And if the investigation of the proofs of Christianity are 
important for him who already believes, how much more im- 
portant must it be for those who have doubts on the subject or 
who definitely reject Christianity. Surely doubters should make 
every possible effort to know all the facts before committing 
themselves to open infidelity. For ought it not appear possible 
to them that their doubts are groundless in view of the fact that 
many of the best men of the past and present—men of broad 
minds and keen insight, much learning, careful discrimination, 
and unquestioned honesty—have been earnest believers? How 
serious their error if they should some day awaken to the fact 
that they had rejected the Word of their Creator and spent 
their lives and used their influence against him! 

Also another reason why this study is important is that it 
is not a matter of discriminating between Christianity and a 


PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS—PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCES 95 


religion nearly as good, but of choosing between Christianity 
and no religion at all. For if we reject Christ and the Bible, 
‘‘to whom shall we go?’’ Certainly one could not prefer to 
plunge into the dark abyss of heathenism. And who, after view- 
ing the incomparable excellence of the doctrinal and moral 
teachings of the Bible, could prefer in exchange the unrighteous 
teachings of the false prophet of Arabia as found in the Koran? 
It is not characteristic of those who have rejected the exalted 
religion of Christ to do a thing so preposterous. They have 
attempted to substitute deism, or ‘‘natural religion,’’ by reject- 
ing the Seriptures and Christ and yet holding theism. But 
deism has proved to be the greatest failure of any system that 
ever professed to be a religion. In France it had as good an 
opportunity to prove its worth as could be possible. It was sup- 
ported by the government, it was approved by the leaders of 
influence, and was accepted by the people. It appropriated the 
Christian houses of worship. It was thoroughly organized and 
set going. But it had no power and no soul, and was soon 
acknowledged by one of the leaders of the country as being far 
inferior to that for which it had been exchanged. 

The subject is too important to be studied with any prejudice. 
Its investigation should be impartial and scientific. But because 
of men’s depravity of heart, too often they do not study this 
subject as they would a question of history or science. They are 
often unwilling that the Bible should be proved to be the Word 
of God because they do not wish to feel obligated to obey it. It 
demands submission, and man’s proud heart rebels. But Chris- 
tianity promises knowledge of the truth only to those who desire 
to obey it. It is inconsistent with present probation that the 
evidences of the truth should be such as would compel belief on 
the part of those who prefer to doubt. A further reason why 
men reject the Bible is because it demands acceptance as a reve- 
lation freely given of God; the pride of men’s hearts leads them 
to prefer to reason out their own philosophies instead. Rather 
than to receive truth as a gift, they prefer to discover, because 
it reflects more honor on themselves. The truly honest seeker 
for truth will come to the investigation in the humble attitude 
of a learner. He will accept facts and facts only. He will fol- 
low the method of Newton in seeking for and holding to facts. 


96 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


He will not be hasty in coming to a decision, but will learn the 
facts and then deliberately draw proper conclusions. 

3. Present-day Task of Apologetics—From its beginning, 
Christianity has had its claims opposed by skeptics and defended 
by apologists. The objections of these opposers have always been 
of the same general character, but have varied much in details. 
Likewise, the evidences set forth by Christian apologists have 
ever been of the same general nature, but the methods of using 
them and the placing of emphasis have varied to meet the nature 
of particular attacks. The defenses of Christianity of the present 
day must be such as will meet the present assault by skeptics. 
Four periods may be distinguished in the history of apologetics. 

(1) The earliest preachers addressed their message to the 
Jews, and in answer to the Jewish objections that Jesus was not 
their promised Messiah appealed to the correspondence between 
the Old Testament prophecies and the events in the life of Jesus. 

(2) When the apostles and others began the propagation of 
Christianity among the heathen, another form of skepticism con- 
fronted them. The doctrine of one God was denied, the Scrip- 
tures were rejected as being a divine revelation, and Christianity 
was rejected as the one true religion. Prominent opposers of 
Christianity of that period were Celsus and Porphyry. This 
heathen skepticism was answered by such Christian writers as 
Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Athenagoras by appeals to the trans- 
forming power of Christianity. The experimental proofs seem 
to have been largely used as Christian evidence at that time, 
although other arguments were used in a measure. 

(3) Another period of apologetics came as a result of the 
rise of deism in the eighteenth century. Lord Herbert advo- 
eated a natural religion in which he denied all that is distinc- 
tively Christian, although he professed belief in theism. David 
Hume later advocated universal skepticism. The result was 
English deism, German rationalism, and French infidelity. But 
the strong tide of skepticism was stemmed successfully by Chris- 
tianity. Able apologists set forth the evidences of Christianity 
with a thoroughness never before known. Eminent among these 
were Joseph Butler and William Paley. Butler’s ‘‘ Analogy of 
Religion’’ and Paley’s ‘‘Evidences of Christianity’’ did much 
to turn back the tide of infidelity and restore men’s faith in the 
Bible. 


PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS—PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCES 97 


(4) But at the present day, while the infidelity of two hun- 
dred years ago is not at all extinct, unbelief has arisen in another 
form—that of the destructive higher eriticism. In this form 
infidelity professes to be Christian, but is strongly rationalistic. 
It denies any such inspiration of the Scriptures as constitutes 
them in any real sense the Word of God, or an authoritative 
revelation of truth. It also denies the divinity of Christ, as well 
as all other supernatural manifestations described in the Scrip- 
tures. It commonly allies itself with materialistic evolution, 
and often has a strong antitheistic tendency. To meet the 
skepticism of the present, then, Christian apologetics must adapt 
the arguments used in the past or produce others to support the 
truth on those points where it is being assaulted. 

II. Nature and Classification of Evidences 

1. Probable, Not Demonstrative, Proofs——Some truths are of 
such a nature that their truthfulness can be demonstrated and 
the proof of these truths is such that the opposite is not con- 
ceivable. As an example, the fact is self-evident and capable of 
demonstration that the sum of the three angles of a triangle is 
equal to two right angles, or that two parallel lines however 
long will never meet. Other facts equally true and capable of 
proof can not be demonstrated, but are proved by probable evi- 
denees. All historical facts are dependent upon such proof. 
And inasmuch as the giving of Christian revelation and the ori- 
gin of Christianity took place in the past, the evidences of 
Christianity are probable, not demonstrative. But probable 
proofs may furnish as great certainty as demonstrative proofs, 
if the evidence is sufficient. As certainly as we know the facts 
already mentioned as being capable of demonstration, so cer- 
tainly we know by means of probable evidences that George 
Washington was the first President of the United States, that 
Napoleon Bonaparte lived, and that Abraham Lincoln signed 
the Proclamation of Emancipation and died at the hand of an 
assassin. So, likewise, as these things can be known certainly 
by probable evidence, the divine origin of the Bible and Chris- 
tianity may be certainly known by evidences of a similar nature, 
if those evidences are sufficient in themselves. Skeptics and 
young persons not accustomed to weighing evidence who require 
demonstrative evidences of the divine origin of Christianity are 
unreasonable in their demands. 


98 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


It should also be considered that the proofs of Christianity 
are not to be taken singly, but together. This is an important 
rule in weighing probable evidences. The strength of Christian 
evidence lies especially in its cumulative nature. The vast amount 
of evidence all pointing in the same direction has the value of a 
demonstration. 

2. Rational and Authenticating Evidences.—Another important 
distinction necessary for properly weighing the evidences, but 
one commonly disregarded by rationalistic skeptics of the present 
time, is that between rational and authenticating evidences. 
Rational evidence shows why a thing must be true. Authenti- 
cating evidence shows why we should believe it is true. Rational 
evidences are employed in supporting those truths that belong 
to ‘‘natural religion’’ such as the existence of God, moral dis- 
tinctions, free will, and immortality. Authenticating evidences 
attest a messenger or message as of God and show why we should 
accept the message on the ground of that testimony. Examples 
of authenticating evidences are miracles and prophecy. This 
kind of evidences is the sole support of those truths of ‘‘revealed 
religion’’ such as the Trinity, atonement, and pardon. Modern 
rationalists do the unreasonable thing of rejecting all that their 
limited understandings can not reason out as truth, and ignore 
the fact that there may be good reasons for believing a proposi- 
tion true though one can not see any reason why it is true except 
that it is affirmed by a well-attested witness. Christian apolo- 
getics properly employs both classes of evidences. 

3. Main Classes of Positive Evidences——Various classifications 
may be made of the evidences of Christianity. For our purpose 
they may be grouped in four main divisions much as was done 
by Paley in his ‘‘Evidences,’’ and as has been done by many 
others since. They are as follows: (1) External evidences, in- 
cluding the authenticity and credibility of the Scriptures, mir- 
acles, and prophecy. (2) Internal evidences, which reason from 
the degree of perfection of the doctrinal and moral standards 
of the Bible, its adaptation to man’s needs, its harmony with 
nature, the harmony of its parts, and the character of Christ. 
(3) Experimental evidences, which appeal to the effects of 
Christianity on believers’ hearts and lives. (4) Collateral evi- 
dences, which reason from the rapid spread of Christianity when 
first propagated, its effects on society where propagated, and its 


PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS—PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCES 99 


acceptance by eminent persons. These four classes are some- 
times called ‘‘positive’’ evidences. 

Another elass of proofs not to be despised is that sometimes 
designated ‘‘presumptive’’ evidences. It reasons that because 
a revelation is possible to God, and man needs it, therefore it is 
not unreasonable to suppose it has been made; and it further 
reasons that because the Bible agrees with what one may prop- 
erly presuppose such revelation should contain, therefore it 
is that revelation from God. 


lif. Probability of a Divine Revelation 


1. Possibility of Revelation—No one who believes in the exist- 
ence of a personal God can consistently deny the possibility of 
his giving a revelation of truth to man. Those who object to 
revelation on the ground of its impossibility do so, in nearly 
every instance, because they hold a pantheistic or similar anti- 
theistic conception of God. The free, personal cause of nature 
is certainly not so limited by nature that he cam not do what he 
would in revealing himself. Certainly the author of speech can 
speak; and even though he is a purely spiritual being, he is 
not limited so that he can not communicate with human spirits 
in union with material bodies. It is sometimes objected: that be- 
cause man is finite in knowledge he can not receive a revelation 
from the Omniscient One. This would be true if finite man must 
stretch himself up to the infinite; but if it is a matter of the 
omniscient God adapting his message to the finite mind of man, 
the difficulty vanishes. 

2. Necessary as a Standard of Right.—It is a reasonable pre- 
supposition that God would wish to speak to the creatures he 
created in his own image, especially in view of the fact that man 
is so greatly in need of a revelation. Only by divine revelation 
ean men know many truths necessary for their highest good and 
God’s glory. In all ages they have recognized their need of 
divine revelation, and Socrates, wise as he was, expressed a hope 
that such a revelation would be given. 

A standard of belief and duty is needed ; but because of man’s 
present perverted moral nature, his conscience is not a satisfac- 
tory guide. Human reason and philosophy are insufficient, as is 
evident from the fact that men’s opinions constantly conflict. 
Even though it were possible to know the truth sufficiently by 


100 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


philosophy, yet the large proportion of men would be incapable 
of thus finding it. The heathen world of both the past and pres- 
ent, with all their philosophies, is a witness to the need of a reve- 
lation. Their moral and religious intuitions need to be supple- 
mented by a message from God. Their wisest philosophers have 
often gone far astray religiously. Their greatest moralists have 
often been immoral and have taught contrary to true moral 
standards. Socrates urged divination, and was given to forni- 
cation. Plato taught that to lie is honorable. Cato was a drunk- 
ard, and recommended and practised suicide. Seneca approved 
fornication, and advocated and practised self-murder. These who 
are cited as heathenism’s greatest teachers and examples of 
morality missed the mark widely. Surely a revelation is needed 
to know the way of right. 

3. Necessary for Pardon of Sin.—All men have a feeling of 
moral obligation to God. They recognize intuitively that some 
things are morally right and others are morally wrong. The feel- 
ing is also common among men everywhere that they have sinned, 
are guilty, and deserve penalty. But is no pardon possible for 
this world of lost sinners? Nature gives no reason for expecting 
pardon. Her laws are inexorable. No pardon is granted their 
violators. He who sticks his hand into the fire will be burned. 
He who thrusts a knife into his heart will die. Or he who steps 
off a precipice is dashed into pieces. Reasoning from nature’s 
laws, one can not consistently expect pardon. Also in reasoning 
from the requirements of God’s perfect government it can not 
be supposed that moral law may be violated with impunity. It 
is right that the sinner should suffer the penalty. If sinners go 
unpunished, how can God’s law be respected? Even though God 
is sole sovereign, yet he may not properly pardon by divine 
prerogative if he is to govern righteously. But yet man must be 
pardoned if he is to be happy. He feels instinctively that pardon 
is possible through the goodness of God. But how ean it be? 
Reason forbids it. Nature and reason give no hint of atonement. 
That wonderful truth is brought to men only through divine 
revelation. Only there is the way of salvation pointed out. Then 
the fact that man needs pardon, and that the way to find it may 
not be known by any other means, is strong reason for expecting 
a divine revelation. 

4, Necessary to the Understanding of Providence and Prayer.— 


PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS—PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCES 101 


A knowledge of the nature of divine providence is important in 
order to draw out men’s highest love for their Creator and to 
develop in them that loving trust in God which is essential to their 
happiness. They need to know that God loves them, that his 
watchful eye is over them, that through his fatherly care they 
enjoy the benefits that come to them. But nature does not make 
clear enough what is the relation of God to his creation that men 
may have ground for trust for and appreciation of his benefits. 
Therefore, because it is needed both for man’s happiness and 
God’s glory, a revelation showing these things is antecedently 
probable. 

Men everywhere have a disposition to pray; and prayer, like 
religion, is almost universal. It has been affirmed that every man 
prays at some time in life. The practise of prayer seems to 
spring from an implanted tendency. But without a divine revela- 
tion, how may one know that God will hear and answer? All we 
ean learn of God in nature would lead us to assume that God’s 
dealings with us can not be changed by prayer. Reason would 
conclude that the all-wise ruler of the universe could not change 
his course at the asking of any one of his millions of creatures 
without great confusion everywhere. In harmony with such a 
conclusion, deists are characteristically prayerless persons. Still 
men intuitively feel they should pray. But will prayer be an- 
swered? What is its purpose? How much should one pray? 
What constitutes acceptable prayer? That these questions may 
be answered by revelation only is attested by the ‘‘vain repeti- 
tions’’ of both the ancient and modern heathen with their vari- 
ous mechanical devices for praying, and repeated prostrations 
of themselves before their idols. Therefore, because prayer is 
important to man’s happiness and God’s glory, and we can not 
know how to pray except by revelation, it is a reasonable pre- 
sumption that such a divine revelation would be given. 


IV. Marks of Divine Revelation to Be Expected Characterize 
the Scriptures 


The antecedent probability of a divine revelation thus far 
discussed is not a reason for assuming the Christian Scriptures 
are that revelation, but merely reason for assuming the prob- 
ability of such revelation. Our reasoning so far indicates a 
probability only of such a revelation as might have been given 


102 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


orally to the patriarchs prior to Moses or to other individuals. 
That the Seriptures are the presupposed revelation is to be 
shown later by positive proofs. But before passing on to those 
evidences it is desirable to consider the presumptive proofs that 
the Scriptures are that antecedently probable revelation. The 
method is to consider what may be reasonably expected to be 
the nature and characteristics of a divine revelation, and then 
to show that the Scriptures bear such marks. 

1. Probable Contents of Divine Revelation—A revelation ade- 
quate to the need must (1) furnish a holy and benevolent object 
of worship and show man’s relation to it; (2) show the possi- 
bility of pardon of sin without the sacrifice of God’s righteous 
character, and also the conditions by which man may obtain 
such forgiveness; (3) show the nature of, and conditions for, a 
restoration of man’s depraved nature so that he ean live right- 
eously; (4) present a perfect standard of doctrine and morals; 
(5) reveal the nature and extent of divine providence, and teach 
us how to pray. The Bible does all this with remarkable clear- 
ness. Also it must be adapted to human conditions and under- 
standing generally. 

2. Probable Manner of Divine Revelation—Any supernatural 
giving of truth to man must be in such a manner as is in har- 
mony with the laws of human thought and capacity to compre- 
hend. It is not to be supposed that in giving a revelation, God 
would contradict or cancel the laws of mind, which he ordained, 
but adapt his revelation of truth to them. Therefore it is to be 
expected that man would not be entirely passive in his reception 
of divine revelation; for mental assimilation requires a certain 
amount of intellectual activity—otherwise, only a blind impres- 
sion would be produced. We may properly presuppose, then, 
that revelation will be given, not merely in words, but also in 
life and action. Also it must be given gradually, to be under- 
stood. It must first set forth the simple and pass on to the 
more complex and spiritual. Such is the manner and order of 
the giving of the Scriptures. Also, it must be expressed in writ- 
ing if it is to be retained and become a general revelation of 
divine truth to men. And further, such a revelation must be 
expressed first to particular persons of a particular nation, and 
by them passed on to the whole world. 

3. Probable Attestation of Divine Revelation—No such revela- 


PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS— PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCES 103 


tion as that supposed could be worthy of acceptance except it 
be sufficiently attested as coming from God. It must be super- 
naturally revealed, and it must bear the marks of supernatural 
origin as a testimony to those to whom it is directed. There 
must be proof that it is from the infinite God, creator of nature, 
and who is known through nature to exist. There can be no 
better evidence than the manifestation of miracles transcending 
the powers of nature, that the giver of the revelation in con- 
nection with which they occur is the author of nature and is of 
infinite power. Also, nothing can more surely attest the infinite 
wisdom and foreknowledge of the author of a revelation than 
the utterance in it of predictions of future events which later 
come to pass in detail. The Scriptures bear abundant marks of 
such supernatural attestation. 

In conclusion, then, it may be said that instead of an ante- 
cedent improbability precluding the idea of revelation, as skep- 
tics sometimes affirm, there is a very strong antecedent prob- 
ability of a divine revelation to men. And not only is a revela- 
tion antecedently probable, but in view of the reasonable pre- 
suppositions of what should be the contents, method, and attesta- 
tion of such a revelation, it is also antecedently probable that 
the Christian Scriptures are that revelation. To admit these 
erounds of probability practically requires the admission of the 
Seriptures as of divine authority. It is not here affirmed that 
these presumptive evidences are conclusive in themselves, but 
they do nullify the presumption against revelation, thus showing 
that the question to be discussed is properly within the province 
of logical discussion, and they furnish a good basis for the posi- 
tive arguments to follow. 


CHAPTER II 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 


The difficulties of the Christian apologist do not lie in the 
direction of scarcity of evidences, nor in any lack of strength in 
the proofs, but rather in the difficulty of discrimination in 
selecting from the vast mass of the many kinds and great num- 
bers of positive evidences such ag his limited space will permit 
and of so arranging and presenting those facts that the reader 
receives the definite impression*that the weight of the evidence 
and the importance of the subject justify. 

The two principal classes of external, or historical, evidences 
are miracles and fulfilled prophecy. The particular examples of 
miracles and prophecies are very many and from these divine in- 
terventions the attestation of the Scriptures may be shown. 
These signs and wonders and fulfilled prophecies are constantly 
appealed to by the Scriptures as proofs that God was with those 
who professed to speak in his name. And they are perfectly valid 
proof of the divine authority of the Scriptures. To those who 
were eye-witnesses of the miracles of Jesus and his apostles, the 
evidence that they were messengers from God was immediate 
and convincing. But to those living in subsequent ages, such 
proofs have value only when positive proof of the credibility of 
the witnesses reporting such miracles is given and when it is 
proved that their testimony has been accurately transmitted to 
those of later ages. But with certain proof of these two things, 
those miracles properly have the same evidential value to us today 
as they had to those ancient eye-witnesses. The need for proof 
of the genuineness and credibility of the Scriptures as a ground 
for prophecy as Christian evidence is much the same as for mira- 
eles. Therefore, not only as distinct branches of external evi- 
dences, but also as being prerequisite to Scripture miracles and 
prophecy as evidence of the divine authority of the Scriptures 
today, it is required that we show first the genuineness of the 
Seriptures, or that they were written by their reputed authors; 
- that we show next their integrity, or that they have been trans- 
mitted to us from their authors substantially uncorrupted; and 
finally, that we show the credibility of the writers, or that they 
were dependable and truthful in recording the facts. There must 


be no missing links in the evidence. We have no need of begging 
104 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 105 


the question. Skeptics sometimes do try begging the question, 
or resorting to misrepresentation of the facts; but Christian 
apologetics requires only the plain facts fairly considered to es- 
tablish its claims. 


I. Genuineness of the New Testament 


What are the proofs that the books of the New Testament 
were written by their reputed authors, or that they were not 
forged at a later date as the works of those whose names they 
bear? This is the question of the genuineness of the New Testa- 
ment. A genuine document is one written by him whose name it 
bears, and is the opposite of a spurious writing. For the purpose 
of condensing the argument, proof is attempted only of the New 
Testament writings, as this is all that is immediately essential to 
our purpose; and, also, when the divine authority of the New 
Testament is proved, that of the Old Testament must necessarily 
be assumed, because the New constantly affirms the divine au- 
thority of the Old Testament. 

1. Method of Showing Genuineness.—The method employed 
for determining the genuineness of any other book of a past age 
is that to be employed in proving the genuineness of the New 
Testament. This method is the tracing of its history back to the 
time of its reputed author. 

A famous religious allegory is extant today entitled ‘‘The 
Pilgrim’s Progress,’’ and is reputed to be the writing of John 
Bunyan. But what is the proof that it is the product of that 
great preacher of three hundred years ago? First, copies of 
various early editions of it may be found in the British Museum 
inscribed with his name. Also, it is not only now universally re- 
ceived as Bunyan’s work, but every age since his time has always 
attributed it to him. Even the age in which he lived accepted it 
as his work. Writers of every subsequent age mention it and 
quote it as being unquestionably from him. 

In its literary style and its descriptions it bears the marks 
characteristic of Bunyan’s time and country. Also, its spirit 
and teachings are in exact harmony with religious standards of 
the Puritanism of that period of which Bunyan was a prominent 
preacher. Such evidence is equally determinative of the genuine- 
ness of a book whether it was written three hundred years ago or 
two thousand years ago. And it is by evidence of this nature that 


106 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the authorship of all the great writings of past ages is ascer- 
tained, if it is known at all, whether those be classical writings 
of Greeks and Romans, or sacred writings of Hebrews and Chris- 
tians. Neither does the New Testament require a different kind 
of evidence of its genuineness because of its religious character. 

The New Testament writings may be traced in all Chris- 
tian literature back to the days of the apostles. The proof of 
genuineness is various in kind and large in quantity. Sir Isaac 
Newton, whose very name is a synonym for loyalty to facts, not 
theory, said, ‘‘I find more sure marks of authenticity in the 
New Testament, than in any profane history whatever.’’ 

2. Genuineness Affirmed by Early Church Fathers.——No proof is 
needed that the New Testament has existed under the names of 
its several authors from the fourth century to the present. 
Since the canon became finally settled during that century, the 
genuineness of those writings has been generally accepted. Every 
one who is at all familiar with the history of the civilized world 
knows that references to the New Testament are interwoven 
with the history and literature of the last sixteen hundred years. 
Also, at least three ancient manuscripts of the New Testament 
still in existence, bearing the names of their authors, and held 
as sacred treasures in three of the world’s great libraries date 
their existence from the fourth century. Thus at a single leap 
we may go back to 325 A. D., within less than two hundred and 
thirty years of the death of the last of the apostles. 

It is needless to give in detail the catalogs or lists of the 
books of the New Testament published by various councils and 
individuals during the fourth century. The fourth council of 
Carthage, in 397 A. D., published such a list as agrees perfectly 
with the canon of the New Testament as we know it today. So 
also do the lists agree published about the same time by the 
great theological writer Augustine, and the learned Latin father 
Jerome. Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, who flourished 315 A. D., 
published, in his ‘‘Keclesiastical History’’ a list of the books of 
the New Testament that agrees exactly with our New Testament 
~ both as to books and authors. Although he states the Epistles 
of James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation were 
questioned by some, he states they were generally received, and 
he accepts them himself. 

Passing on to the third century, we find proofs of genuineness 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 107 


similar to those already mentioned of the fourth century. Origen, 
who flourished about 230 A. D. and who was born 184 A. D., 
less than one hundred years after the death of the apostle John, 
was probably the most learned in the Seriptures of any of the 
Greek fathers. According to Jerome, he had the Scriptures by 
heart. One living so near the time of the apostles and of such 
wide knowledge must necessarily be regarded as possessing de- 
pendable information concerning the authorship of the New 
Testament. He gives a list of the New Testament books which 
includes none not accepted today and all of those we recognize 
except the Epistles of James and Jude; but his omission of these 
was evidently unintentional, as he in other places expressly 
acknowledges them as belonging to the canon. 

Going still farther back into the last half of the second cen- 
tury, we find among the names of eminent church fathers that 
of Tertullian, who was born about 150 A. D., which was less than 
fifty-five years after the last apostle. Being a voluminous writer 
in defense of Christianity, he quoted much from the New Testa- 
ment, including all its books except four of the shorter epistles, 
and as he gave no list of accepted New Testament books, there is 
no reason for supposing he doubted these. Irenzus, born 120 
A. D., disciple of Polyearp, who was personally acquainted with 
the apostle John, testifies that each of the four Gospels were 
written by their reputed authors. Thig is very direct evidence. 
Also Justin Martyr, who died 148 A. D., quotes from the Gos- 
pels, and Papias, born 80 A. D., who was a ‘‘hearer of John”’ 
and a disciple of Polycarp, gives valuable testimony to the Gos- 
pels of Matthew and Mark as being by their reputed authors. 
These are but a few of the proofs that might be, given, but they 
are surely sufficient to establish the authorship of the New Testa- 
ment for any reasonable mind. But let us finish this line of 
evidence. 

They were accepted as genuine by the apostolic fathers. The 
apostolic fathers are those church fathers who came into touch 
personally with the apostles themselves. The genuine writings 
of at least three of these have come down to us—Clement of 
Rome, died 101 A. D., Polycarp, died 166 A. D.; and Ignatius, 
martyred 107 A. D. These three alone have left us in their writ- 
ings over one hundred quotations from the New Testament repre- 
senting every book but four (2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John). 


108 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


These early writers confirm the authorship of the New Testa- 
ment books and regard them with the greatest of respect. This 
is conclusive proof of the genuineness of the New Testament 
books. 

Thus we have traced the records of the New Testament docu- 
ments back to the very time when the apostles lived. The evi- 
dence for genuineness is complete. There is not a missing link. 
Though but a few catalogs and other quotations from among 
many of the church fathers are mentioned, yet the evidence given 
is probably fifty times stronger than that for any Greek or Ro- 
man classic. These classics are accepted as genuine. Why, then, 
may we not accept the New Testament as genuine? In the light 
of the foregoing evidence, how utterly ungrounded is that insinu- 
ation of a certain class of ignorant skeptics that possibly the 
New Testament documents were ‘‘forged by learned monkg dur- 
ing the dark ages’’! Also consider how dense was the ignorance 
of the skeptic Paine, or else how deliberate was his falsehood, 
when he made the statement, ‘‘There was no such book as the 
New Testament till more than three hundred years after the 
time that Christ is said to have lived.”’ 

3. Genuineness Insured by Carefulness in Determining the Canon.— 
The writing of the New Testament was a gradual process, the 
several books being written for the immediate purpose of supply- 
ing particular needs in the early church. These writings were 
distributed geographically in many countries or cities through- 
out the Roman Empire. But inasmuch as they were regarded 
as authoritative and divinely inspired scriptures along with the 
Old Testament Scriptures (see 2 Peter 3:16), copies were soon 
multiplied and distributed among the churches. These writings 
were gradually collected into one volume known as the New 
Testament. This collection is definitely mentioned by Tertullian, 
who was born only a little more than fifty-five years after the 
death of the apostle John, as the ‘‘New Testament,’’ composed 
of two parts, the ‘‘gospels and apostles.’’ 

But, due to the wide scattering of the New Testament docu- 
ments at first and the slowness of travel and communication at 
that time, the determining of what was canonical and the col- 
leeting of such books into one volume was a process that covered 
a considerable period of time. Most of the New Testament was 
generally accepted as canonical in the second century, but it was 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 109 


not until the fourth century that a few of the books were not 
questioned by some. The very fact that these were under ques- 
tion so long is proof that careful discrimination was made and 
that a book wag received into the canon only when its genuine- 
ness was fully established by careful investigation of the facts. 
It was during this period that many eminent Christian writers 
wrote their catalogs of the New Testament books. As to their 
eanonicity, the books were of two classes—those known as 
‘‘homologumena’’ (i. e., acknowledged), and those called ‘‘anti- 
legomena’’ (or disputed). ‘Twenty of the twenty-seven books 
were in the first class. The remaining seven were the disputed 
books and included Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, 
Jude, and Revelation. However, the question was not so much 
whether or not they are canonical, but whether they were written 
by their reputed authors. James and Jude styled themselves 
‘‘servants,’’ instead of calling themselves ‘‘apostles.’’ John 
called himself an; elder. Some of the earliest catalogs admitted 
books as canonical that later writers questioned. The very 
variation in these lists and the final acceptance of all the books 
as canonical is proof of the great care and intelligent discrimina- 
tion used in the determining of the canon. 

Careful discrimination as to canonical writings was desir- 
able to the early Christians for various reasons. First, these 
documents were greatly revered and read in the churches as 
inspired scripture. This was common in the second century, 
according to Justin Martyr and Tertullian. Because of their 
great reverence for the writings of the apostles, they were care- 
ful to exclude spurious and apocryphal documents. And, too, 
heretics were ready to forge writings in the name of apostles 
to support their erroneous teachings, which was another reason 
for ecarefulness. Again, as in Diocletian’s persecution, Chris- 
tiang were often called upon to give their lives in defense of 
their sacred seriptures. When life and death were at issue, they 
discriminated carefully against apocryphal documents. Con- 
sidering the high regard then held for the apostles’ writings, the 
strong motives for the most careful discrimination by early 
Christians, and that the investigation was conducted over a long 
period by many of the most learned men of the time, including 
philosophers, rhetoricians, and divines, we may be assured that 
the books were finally accepted only on the most certain grounds 


110 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


of their genuineness. Again the proof is more than is needed. 
Apologetics requires only the proof of the genuineness of those 
books recording the miracles of Jesus and the apostles, namely 
the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles; and we have the proof, 
not only of these, but of all the other books of the New Testa- 
ment also. 

4. Early Adversaries Never Denied Genuineness.—If it be ob- 
jected that the authorities cited for the genuineness of the New 
Testament are all friends of Christianity, it may be answered 
that the testimony of a Christiah ought to be regarded as being 
at least equally credible with that of a heathen. However, among 
all the formidable enemies of ancient times none are known to 
have ever once questioned the genuineness of the New Testa- 
ment. They make attacks on the books seeking internal fiaws 
and endeavoring to show contradictions, but never do they dis- 
pute their genuineness. 

Porphyry, who wrote about the year 270 A. D., was the most 
deadly foe early Christianity had. He had every advantage of 
learning, ability, and position to discover any ungenuineness in 
the Christians’ Seriptures. He shows by his writings against 
them that he knew the value of such an argument; but he makes 
no attempt to prove them ungenuine, although it is certain he 
was acquainted with them. Doubtless his refraining from such 
an attempt was because he knew evidence existed that they were 
genuine. Celsus was another noted adversary of Christianity, 
who flourished 176 A. D., or less than eighty years after the 
death of the apostle John. He was a learned man, well ac- 
quainted with the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John and sev- 
eral of the Epistles, from which he quotes not less than eighty 
times. Living so near the time of their writing, he had full 
opportunity to prove them ungenuine if such were possible; but 
that it was not possible is evident from his entire silence on the 
subject. This acceptance of the genuineness of the New Testa- 
ment at so early a date by men of learning who were its invet- 
erate foes and desired to disprove it, is a most convincing proof 
of New Testament authorship that can not be disputed. 

A further confirmation of the genuineness of the New Testa- 
ment is the nature of the language in which it is written, which 
corresponds to the time and circumstances of the writing and 
also with the characters and degree of culture of the writers. 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 111 


II. Integrity of the New Testament 

After showing the genuineness of the New Testament, the 
next point for inquiry is its integrity. How do we know that its 
text has not become corrupted by the much copying of it during 
the centuries so that the sense of the original writings is lost? 
Can the original manuscripts of the inspired penmen be pro- 
duced? That they are not known to exist is certain, and that 
they will yet be found is not probable. But here also God has 
not left his Word without many witnesses: From many sources, 
proofs of various kinds may be produced that our present New 
Testament text is practically that of the apostolic period. 

1. Evidence from Ancient Manuscripts——-The manuscripts of 
the New Testament now extant are very numerous. Scholars 
consider that as many as twenty manuscripts of an ancient 
classic are sufficient to determine its original text. But the manu- 
scripts of the Bible collected by scholars for the determining of 
its original reading are actually counted by the thousands, 
twenty-six hundred having been collected for editing critical 
editions of the text, in the original languages. Certainly these 
are enough to establish the correct reading of the sacred text. 
Some of these date back but a few hundred years before the 
oldest printed Bible, which was produced in the middle of the 
fifteenth century. But some date back to as early as the eighth 
century, and a few to the fourth. Ordinarily the older a manu- 
script the greater its value; but a comparatively late manuscript 
may have great value if it is shown to have been copied from a 
very ancient manuscript. That none date farther back than the 
fourth céntury may be due to the destruction of many copies 
during the Diocletian persecution in 802. Three of the most 
valued manuscripts are the Sinaitic, in the Petrograd Library, 
in Russia; the Vatican Manuscript, in the Vatican, at Rome; and 
the Alexandrian Manuscript, in the British Museum. All of 
these are said to date back to the fourth century. These, espe- 
cially as corroborated by hundreds of other manuscripts, have 
much value for verifying our text today. 

But it may be objected that in these many ancient manu- 
scripts of the New Testament there are literally thousands of 
different readings. This is true, but alarm is needless; for it is 
also true that these are very minor variations in nearly all 
eases, unintentional errors of copyists such as omissions or trans- 


112 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


positions in letters or the substitution of words of similar mean- 
ing, and that not one in a thousand makes any real difference 
in the meaning of the text. And in all these no doctrine, duty, 
or fact is affected. By a careful comparison of these manu- 
scripts by scholars, the sacred text has been purified to such an 
extent that it may be safely said we are certain of nine hundred 
and ninty-nine words of every thousand. 

2. Corroboration of Ancient Versions and Quotations.—The prop- 
agation of Christianity in lands where the Greek language, in 
which the New Testament was originally written, was not com- 
monly known required the translation of the New Testament 
into these languages. Some of these translations were made at 
a very early date. Probably the oldest is the Syriac, or Peshito, 
which was made into the Aramaic for the use of the Syrian 
churches as early as the second century—according to some of 
the best Syriac scholars, some parts were made before the close 
of the first century. Though it was not brought into contact 
with our Greek New Testament until the sixteenth century, hav- 
ing been in the hands of the Hastern churches, yet when com- 
pared with the Greek text it was found to be practically iden- 
tical with it in its reading. This is a remarkable confirmation 
of the integrity of our New Testament text, and shows certainly 
that it is now such as it was in the second century,when the Syri- 
-ae Version was made. The Old Latin Version was translated in 
North Africa about 170 A. D., for the Latin-speaking churches. 
It was revised by Jerome in making the Vulgate (383-404), 
which has ever since been the standard of the Roman Catholie 
Church. The agreement between this and the Greek text shows 
the latter to be practically the same as that of the second cen- 
tury. The Peshito contains all the books of the Bible except 
2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. The Old Latin 
omits only Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter. The two together 
prove the existence of all the books of the New Testament except 
2 Peter as early as the second century, and that they were sub- 
stantially the same as we now have them. Several other versions 
also have much value in proving the uncorruptness of the sacred 
text. Among them are the Septuagint of the Old Testament, 
translated 250 B. C.; the Coptic, or Egyptian, 200 A. D.; the 
Gothic, fourth century; Ethiopic, 400 A. D.; the Armenian, 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 113 


fifth century; the Slavonian, ninth century; and the Arabic, 
tenth century. 

And the uncorrupt preservation of the sacred text can be 
proved not only by comparison with ancient versions, but also 
by the many quotations to be found in the Christian writers of 
the first three centuries. Sir David Dalrymple found the entire 
New Testament was quoted by them with the exception of eleven 
verses. How marvelously has God preserved to us many infall- 
ible proofs of the integrity of the text of the New Testament! 

3. No Material Change Was Possible—That a corruption of the 
sacred writings did not occur has been sufficiently shown. But 
why it could not have occurred is also evident. As soon as the 
sacred books were published, copies began to be made so that in 
a short time they were scattered over the entire civilized world. 
These were revered as divinely inspired scripture and read pri- 
vately and in the churches. They were carefully and jealously 
suarded against any important change in their text or meaning. 
To suppose that any overcredulous person could have interpo- 
lated in the sacred text legendary stories of miracles is prepos- 
terous. First, it would have been necessary to change the copies 
throughout the world, which could not have been done, and if it 
had been done it could not have been kept secret from skeptics. 
Also, Christianity had too many enemies for such a thing to 
occur without its being detected. Enemies would not allow 
friends to change the text, and friends were very careful that 
heretics or enemies did not change it; besides, neither could have 
changed the text even though not thus watched by the other. 
Because it carries its proof with it, the method God has chosen 
for the preservation of the integrity of the sacred text is better 
than if the original manuscripts had been preserved, unless they 
were unquestionably proved to be the autographs of the inspired 
writers. 

III. Credibility of the New Testament History 

How do we know that the history related in the New Testa- 
ment, especially in the Gospels, is worthy of being believed? 
The proof of the genuineness and uncorrupt, transmission of the 
text of the New Testament would ordinarily be assumed to imply 
its credibility, but it is conceivable that a history may be genu- 
ine and yet not true to facts. In the evidences of Christianity, 
nothing need be left to assumption. Every link required for the 


114 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


argument may be and should be supplied. Here, as on other 
points, the evidence is of overwhelming strength, though space 
permits but a brief statement of it. Our purpose at this point 
is not to attempt at once to show the New Testament to be a 
divine revelation, but to show only that its history as such is true. 

1. Credibility of the Gospel History Accepted by Those Familiar 
with the Events—The surest proof that the miracles and other 
events of the gospel history are worthy of belief is the fact that 
they were believed and propagated by multitudes, at the peril 
of their lives, who lived at the time and places where the events 
are alleged to have occurred. We have certain proof that the 
Gospels were published as we now have them in the very land 
where their events occurred and during the lifetime of the peo- 
ple who witnessed the things described. Had they been pub- 
lished in a part of the world so far from the scene of the 
events that no one could have investigated or testified as to their 
truthfulness, or if they had not been published until more than 
a century after the events so that no one living could have con- 
firmed the statements as an actual witness, then the proof had 
been less positive. But the writer of the first Gospel testifies as 
an eye-witness of the events described. He wrote his Gospel to 
the Jews among whom the events of Jesus’ ministry took place. 
He wrote and published it in the land of Palestine, where Jesus 
spent his life. He wrote and published it while the majority of 
those were still living who lived when the events occurred and 
who witnessed their occurrence. 

Surely if he had seriously misstated the truth about any im- 
portant fact mentioned it could not have passed unchallenged in 
that age of culture and religious controversy. If critical scribes, 
Pharisees, and Sadducees sought so diligently to catch Jesus in 
his words, it is certain they would be ready to deny any false 
statement as to known facts at that later period when so many 
of their disciples had fallen away to the new faith of Christ. 
The entire gospel history reflects severely on the Jews as a whole, 
and especially on their rulers and priests. Why did they not 
deny the statement of Matthew that Jesus opened the eyes of 
two blind men at Jericho on the oceasion of his last journey to 
Jerusalem? Or why did they not deny the statement that dark- 
ness was over all the land for three hours at Christ’s death on 
the cross? Why did they not contradict that statement of Luke 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 115 


that a lame man was healed at the temple gate by Peter? 

That neither Jew nor Greek in all their opposition to Chris- 
tianity in the first century ever attempted to deny the truthful- 
ness of the gospel writers is a silent testimony by all the thou- 
sands of those enemies of Christianity, who knew that the events 
described actually occurred. If these things could have been 
denied successfully, those were not wanting who would most cer- 
tainly have denied them. Their silence is proof that they knew 
the events related concerning Jesus were so notorious that to 
deny them would have made themselves ridiculous. They attrib- 
uted Jesus’ miracles to the power of Beelzebub, but never denied 
their occurrence. 

Also, those thousands of Christians of that period who in the 
face of persecution, imprisonment, and death itself affirmed 
their belief cf these things had abundant opportunity for in- 
vestigation, and many of them had been eye-witnesses of the 
events described. Do men choose to suffer dishonor, privation, 
persecution, and violent deaths in defense of what they know to 
be false? If not, then these men knew the things they taught 
to be true and could not doubt them. Their affirmation of these 
things under such circumstances is reason enough for our believ- 
ing them. 

2. The Writers Possessed the Requisites for Credibility—Twe 
qualifications are necessary to constitute one a credible witness: 
one must have adequate knowledge and dependable honesty. In 
the nature of the case, the testimony of one possessing these quali- 
fications must be true. Did the gospel writers possess them ? 

That they had full opportunity to know the facts concerning 
the events they relate is certain. Matthew and John were with 
Jesus throughout his ministry. They lived with him, learned at 
his feet, and witnessed his miracles in broad daylight; not onee, 
but hundreds of times over a period of years. They were among 
his most intimate friends. They could not have been deceived. 
No mere sleight-of-hand tricks could have passed undetected 
when put to such tests as were these miracles. It is not possible 
that these men, whose writings show them to be men of well- 
balaneed minds, could have been so carried away by enthusiasm 
that they would have imagined, in many details as to persons, 
time, place, and other circumstances, such a long series of events 
to have occurred that. never actually occurred. The cheory that 


116 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


they were so influenced by enthusiasm that they unconsciously 
misrepresented the truth to the extent of all the supernatural in 
the New Testament history is untenable when apphed to the par- 
ticular events and miracles recorded. 

That the New Testament writers possessed trustworthy hon- 
esty as historians is evident from their writings. They do not 
write as men conscious of intention to deceive. Writers of fic- 
titious stories do not mention the time, place, and other circum- 
stances relating to an alleged event so that it can be investigated. 
But these writers of the gospel and apostolice histories commonly 
tell the time and place of a miracle, and even the name of the 
persons concerned. ‘‘Generality is the cloak of fiction.’’ But 
John tells of a man named Lazarus of Bethany whose sisters 
were named Mary and Martha, and that Lazarus died there, 
was buried for four days, and that in the presence of several 
witnesses besides the disciples, Jesus called him out of the tomb 
alive. Deceivers do not write such details. Also in political 
events, which they often mention in detail, they can be proved 
to be correct, and their honesty in recording these facts is rea- 
son for believing they have as honestly recorded other things. 

But the most convincing proof that they were honest in their 
writings is the fact that they were willing to suffer disgrace, 
persecution, and even death in defense of what they wrote. They 
could have had no motive for deception. If they intended to 
deceive, they were evil men. Then their motive must have been 
for selfish advantage. But instead of gain, these men had a 
prospect only of loss, even of life. When they were offered the 
choice between recantation and death, they all without hesita- 
tion chose death. Surely rather than to suppose such things it 
is easier to believe they were honest and were firmly convinced 
of what they wrote. 

IV. Miracles 

Jesus and his apostles came proclaiming that they were di- 
vinely sent messengers commissioned to impart to mankind a 
revelation of the way of salvation. As credentials that they were 
ambassadors of God, they pointed to certain works which are 
described as being miracles. The necessity for credentials of 
some kind to substantiate a claim to being an ambassador of 
God is at once apparent. Jesus recognized the propriety of 
men’s requiring of him such proofs of his claims. He appealed 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 117 


to his works as credentials when the Jews said, ‘‘ What sign show- 
est thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou 
work?’’ And when, another asked if he was the promised Mes- 
siah, he said, ‘‘The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, 
the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised 
api: 

Nothing can be better proof that one is a messenger sent of 
God than power to perform miracles. The power the messenger 
exercises which is superior to that of nature is at once properly 
assumed to be the power of Him who constituted nature. And 
one very naturally concludes as did Nicodemus when he said, 
‘“We know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man 
ean do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.’’ 
Even prominent infidels have admitted such credentials are ac- 
ceptable. They question only whether it can be shown that mir- 
acles have actually occurred. The New Testament writers not 
only affirm that miracles were worked, but they describe them 
in minute detail. The proof already given of the genuineness 
of the New Testament and of the credibility of the writers of it 
ought to be sufficient reason for accepting the plain accounts of 
miracles therein given as sure evidence that Christianity and 
the Scriptures are of God. The evidence is complete at this 
point, and the investigator might properly be referred at once 
to the Sacred Writings. However, that the real strength of the 
evidences may be shown it is well that we give further proof of 
the reality of the miracles described in the New Testament. This 
we might proceed to do at once except for certain antecedent 
objections to miracles that skeptics have raised. These must first 
be answered. 

1. Possibility and Probability of Miracles—A miracle has been 
defined by G. P. Fisher as ‘‘an event which the forces of nature 
-——including the natural powers of man—can not of themselves 
produce, and which must, therefore, be referred to a super- 
natural agency.’’ A fuller definition might be given, but this 
expresses the main characteristics. A miracle is not necessarily 
a violation nor a contradiction of natural law. Neither does it 
involve a suspension of natural law, but only the entrance of 
another power that operates independently of nature. The 
power of gravitation was no more suspended when Jesus walked 
on the water than it is when a boy throws a ball into the air. 


118 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


The ordinary necessitated powers of nature are merely tran- 
scended. It is not an event without a cause, but one caused by 
God’s supernatural operation. Attempts have been made to 
show on scientific grounds that miracles are impossible. It is 
said that the laws of nature are uniform, that a miracle is a 
violation of nature’s laws and therefore it can not occur, In 
reply it may be said that this objection has the serious fault of 
begging’ the question. As just stated, a miracle is not necessarily 
either a violation or a contradiction of natural law. The prin- 
cipal weakness of the objection is that it ignores the fact that an 
event in nature may be caused by an agent acting in nature yet 
above nature. The human will, through its physical organism, 
is capable of acting on and independently of the necessitated 
powers of nature. Man is able to hold an iron ax at the surface 
of a body of water, although gravitation would naturally cause 
it to sink to the bottom. If man can do such a thing, surely the 
Almighty ean do so (2 Kings 6:5-7). If we admit the existence 
of a personal extra-mundane (God, the denial of the possibility 
of miracles is ridiculous. Only those question the possibility of 
miracles who hold a pantheistic, or any other than a theistic, 
conception of God. 

Many volumes have been written concerning the probability 
of miracles. Skeptics have endeavored to show an antecedent 
improbability of the occurrence of miracles. But all that has 
been said on the probability of revelation has a bearing here. 
From man’s great need of a divine revelation and God’s good- 
ness, it is reasoned that a revelation is probable. And from the 
necessity of authentication of that revelation and the special 
value and appropriateness of miracles as authentication it is 
reasoned that miracles are probable. It is evident from the 
existence of moral law and moral beings that nature does not 
exist for its own sake, but for the use of moral beings. Also, it 
is reasonable to expect God to work miracles independently of 
natural law when he sees it is advantageous for man’s moral 
excellence. The sinfulness and depravity of men have resulted 
in the creation of a need of such supernatural manifestations as 
a means to their recovery. Therefore the presumption ig in 
favor of the occurrence of miracles. 

2. Possibility of Proving Miracles by Testimony.—It is not un- 
commonly affirmed by skeptics that even if the possibility and 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 119 


probability of miracles, or even their actual occurrence, be ad- 
mitted, yet their occurrence can not be proved by testimony, 
nor known to any except those who actually witnessed them. 
Their argument as stated by Hume, whose name is usually con- 
nected with this ol-jection, is briefly as follows: Because a miracle 
is so contradictory to all human experience, it is more reasonable 
to believe any amount of testimony is false than it is to believe 
a miracle has actually occurred. This is the great labor-saving 
device of infidels in their opposition to miracles. Any attempt 
by skeptics honestly to meet and disprove the vast amount of 
evidences of the occurrence of miracles would require much 
learned labor, and then they could not hope to give a convincing 
refutation. But by this simple formula of Hume’s, which the 
most ignorant skeptic can memorize and recite, it is supposed 
that at a single sweep all the Christian evidences from the many 
accounts of miracles are disposed of at once and forever. 

But the argument is unsound for more than one reason. The 
principal fallacy of it is, however, that it makes one’s own per- 
sonal experience the measure of all human experience. If this 
were true, no new or unusual event or fact could be learned ex- 
cept by the senses. The truth is that most of the things we know 
we learn through testimony. Unless we did credit the testimony 
of others, none could believe such an event as a volcanic erup- 
tion or a severe earthquake ever occurred except the compara- 
tively small number who have been witnesses of them. Or ex- 
cept for belief in testimony to an unusual but possible event, 
the person whose life has been spent in the torrid zone must deny 
the fact that water congeals and becomes ice at a temperature of 
32 degrees Fahrenheit. Or if it is more reasonable to believe 
any amount of testimony false rather than to believe an event 
true that is beyond the realm of our own personal experience, 
then the majority of men must forever remain ignorant of most 
of the facts they now know. They can not know that great 
geysers exist. The size of the earth, the depth of the ocean, the 
height of the highest mountain-peaks, the fact of the radiophone, 
and of wireless telegraphy can never be known except by those 
who demonstrate or see them. 

To exclude testimony and make experience the only ground 
for confidence is to require the rejection of all that does not 
agree with what we have personally witnessed. It means to re- 


120 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ject most of what we know and to close the door of our minds to 
all beyond the narrow limits of our personal observation. It is 
neither proper nor the custom of sound-thinking men to hold 
such an attitude toward testimony. He who should attempt to 
hold such an attitude in all the affairs of life would be regarded 
as immoderately skeptical indeed. Men accept or reject testi- 
mony concerning unusual but possible events, not because it 
accords with nor contradicts their experience, but according to 
the credibility or incredibility of the witness. 

If a party of twenty-five eminent scientists exploring a newly 
discovered land should return with the astonishing report that 
they found mountains there consisting of solid gold, the question 
would not be, Does this agree with or contradict our experience? 
but, Is their testimony credible? If they are all trained miner- 
ologists capable of determining what is gold and what is not, and 
if they all ever in the past have proved themselves to be truth- 
ful men, then their testimony should not and would not be re- 
jected as insufficient ground for believing those mountains of 
gold exist. 

Or if ten men known to be intelligent and truthful tell of 
seeing a certain man dead and buried in the tomb, we believe 
their testimony without difficulty. Then if. they further tell us 
that they saw him raised from the dead by an adequate cause, 
the power of God, for the purpose of authenticating a revelation 
of God to men of the way of salvation, which is certainly ade- 
quate purpose, there is no reason why their testimony should not 
be accepted as is their testimony of the man’s death and burial. 

Hume’s argument against miracles is also chargeable with 
the fallacy of self-contradiction. It endeavors to overthrow our 
faith in human testimony by opposing to such testimony the gen- 
eral experience of men. But how can we know what is the expe- 
rience of men generally except by their testimony? Or how can 
we know we have disproved the credibility of human testimony 
if we must credit it in order to discredit it! 

3. Proofs that Miracles Occurred.—Now we come to the vital 
question. Did miracles actually occur in the ministry of Jesus 
and his apostles? It is not a matter of theory, but a plain ques- 
tion of fact. If they occurred, in the nature of them their real- 
ity was discernible by the senses. The raising of Lazarus from 
the dead, the feeding of the multitudes with five loaves and two 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 121 


fishes, the opening of the blind eyes of Bartimeus, or the curing 
of the lame man at the gate Beautiful could be brought to the 
test of the senses. And like other historic events, a credible 
record of them could be transmitted to those of later ages. In 
addition, then, to the general credibility of the gospel history 
already shown, and which ought to be sufficient, what other rea- 
sons do we have for believing that miracles were actually per- 
formed? 

(1) They were done publicly. The Bible miracles were not 
done in a corner, but for the greater part in the most public man- 
ner possible and before many witnesses, including not only those 
sympathetic towards Christ, but also those opposed. They were 
not done in the absence of witnesses, as were the supernatural 
things related of Mohammed such ag the night visits of the angel 
Gabriel to him, and the transmission to him from heaven of the 
various parcels of the Koran from time to time. They were per- 
formed before the multitude in the crowded temple courts, be- 
fore the people gathered in the synagogs, along the public high- 
way thronged with pilgrims to the Passover, and before the 
assembled thousands who came with their sick and diseased for 
healing and to sit at his feet to hear his word. Persons of all 
classes witnessed them—the rich and the poor; the learned scribe 
and Pharisee, and the common fisherman and farmer; rulers of 
broad experience like Nicodemus; and Roman military men such 
as the centurion of Capernaum. They were done, not alone in 
the quietude of Galilean villages, but at the great annual festi- 
vals at Jerusalem. 

(2) They were of great number and variety. Another proof 
of the reality of the Bible miracles is the great number of them. 
Imposters pretending to miracles usually find it less difficult to 
pretend to but few. But the ministry of Jesus as described in 
the Gospels was filled with them. Not fewer than forty are de- 
scribed in detail, and these are represented as only examples of 
very many others which he did. These miracles were also of 
great variety; so they could not have been sleight-of-hand tricks. 
He cured all kinds of diseases, not of a few selected persons, but 
of all who came to him. And not only did he cure the sick, but 
he raised the dead on at least three occasions. Twice he fed the 
multitudes with a very small quantity of food. He turned water 


122 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


into wine. And he stilled the storm. Only Omnipotence is cap- 
able of these things. 

(3) They were performed over a long period of time. 
Throughout the three years of Jesus’ personal ministry and for 
many years after during the ministry of the apostles, these mar- 
velous works continued. They could have been examined again 
and again. Persons healed or raised from the dead continued to 
live in the localities where the miracles were performed; so it 
could be known that the works were genuine and permanent. 
Any skeptic in that day had ample time to go to see and test the 
miracles for himself. 

(4) They were performed by unlearned men. The perform- 
ers of the New Testament miracles were for the most part not 
men of the schools, not educated, nor of high social standing or 
wealth. They were not capable, merely as men, to carry out a 
scheme of imposture that would not have been detected by their 
numerous enemies in that enlightened age. 

(5) No attempt to perform them failed. In no instance did 
Jesus and his apostles fail in any attempt to heal all the vast 
multitudes who applied to them. It is true that the disciples 
once failed to heal a demoniac boy; but Jesus instantly healed 
him, and told them the cause of their failure. According to the 
records, their cures were always definite and complete. No 
scheme of fraud could thus always succeed so perfectly. Only 
the power of God sufficiently accounts for these results. 

(6) They were examined, but never denied. These miracles 
were carefully examined at the time they were performed and 
for many years following. Many open-minded persons, like 
Nicodemus, examined them and believed Jesus’ claims as a con- 
sequence. But they were most critically examined by the enemies 
of Christ, who were many. The claims of Christianity were 
such that it was at once opposed by both the state and all other 
religions. Judaism and Paganism, led by their powerful priest- 
hoods, alike sought to destroy it. It was opposed by learned 
scribes and powerful rulers. Had it been possible to swear these 
miracles were frauds, these enemies would certainly have so 
sworn. The chief priests would have had no need to stain their 
hands with the blood of Jesus if they could have shown his mir- 
acles were not genuine. They were compelled to acknowledge 
their reality even if they did falsely ascribe them to the power 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 123 


of Satan. Right in the presence of their enemies in times of 
severe persecution and opposition Jesus and his apostles appealed 
to their miracles as proof that they were of God. Peter did so in 
his Pentecostal sermon, also when brought before the Sanhedrin 
after the healing of the lame man. If these enemies of Chris- 
tianity could have denied the reality of those miracles, they 
would have done so. But never once did they attempt it. To 
have tried to do so would have shown their own hypocrisy and 
made them ridiculous in the eyes of all men. 

(7) They were acknowledged by friends. Most of the friends 
of Christianity were such because they believed these miracles 
real, They knew in many instances that to accept Christianity 
meant disgrace, poverty, persecution, and death, and if they had 
found fraud in these alleged miracles they would never have 
chosen to accept Christ. But it was because they knew that his 
miracles were real that they recognized him as a teacher come 
from God and worthy of their homage. Neither do we have 
record of any of them confessing they were deceived in suppos- 
ing these miracles were real. They sometimes as a result of per- 
secution forsook Christianity, but none is known ever to have 
confessed he was mistaken about the reality of Jesus’ miracles. 
As converts these would have had opportunity to know whatever 
secrets may have belonged to the working of the New Testament 
miracles. If there was any machinery for fraud, they would 
have been aware of it. But never once do we have record of any 
who had departed from the faith ever pretending to reveal any 
secrets or disclose any fraud in Jesus’ miracles. Judas Iscariot 
was one of Jesus’ disciples, a preacher, and had been sent him- 
self by Jesus to perform miracles. When he sold his master, 
why did he not expose any fraud in Jesus’ miracles? He would 
have been paid well for doing so. Why did he not give his testi- 
mony against Jesus at his trial? The answer is certain. ‘‘I 
have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.’’ Here 
is a wonderful testimony to the genuineness of the miracles of 
Jesus. 

(8) They were acknowledged by enemies. The enemies of 
the gospel had abundant opportunity to test the miracles of 
Jesus as to their genuineness, and strong reason for doing s0; 
and it is certain they did examine them. But they never once 
denied the reality of the miracles, and their failure to deny the 


124 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


reality of them is a strong testimony to their genuineness. We 
could hardly ask that these enemies expose their own hypocrisy 
by giving positive testimony to the miracles of the gospel. Yet 
they have not only united in witnessing to these miracles by their 
silence as to any attempt at denying them, but they have given 
positive testimony to their genuineness. Since the credibility 
of the gospel history has been shown, we might quote from that 
the words of enemies to show that they acknowledged the reality 
of these miracles; but to make the testimony stronger, proof is 
adduced from other sources. The Jewish writers in the Talmud 
acknowledge these miracles as having really occurred, but refer 
them to magic or other sources than the will and power of God. 
Even heathen writers admit the reality of the gospel miracles. 
Celsus acknowledged that Christ wrought miracles by which 
people were caused to believe he is the Messiah. He also ascribes 
them to magic. Also Porphyry, Lucian, Hierocles, and Julian, 
the emperor, admit that miracles were performed, but Julian 
attempts to make light of them, wondering why so much stir 
should be made about a person who merely ‘‘opened the eyes of 
the blind, restored limbs to the lame, and delivered persons 
possessed. ’”’ 

(9) Christ’s claims were based on his miracles from the 
beginning. The religion of the Bible is the only world religion 
which at its beginning appealed to miracles as evidence of the 
divine authority of its teachers. It is true that most false relig- 
ions claim miracles for their founders; but these miracles were 
appendages of religions already set up, and were not the evidence 
by which the authority of the religions were first established. 
Moreover, such miracles, like those of Mohammed, were wit- 
nessed by no one except the performer of them. They were 
done in a corner, and consequently have no evidential value, 
as do the miracles of the Bible. No other religion ever made 
such bold claims as did that of the Bible in pointing to its mir- 
acles as its credentials at a time when it had no sympathetic 
followers. Had its miracles not been what they were professed 
to be, it would never have been accepted by the millions who 
became its adherents in the early centuries. 

What incredulity must be necessary on the part of modern 
infidels to deny the reality of the gospel miracles, supported as 
they are by all the foregoing considerations! Belief in these 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 125 


miracles is reasonable. Denial of their reality is unreasonable. 
To suppose they did not occur, reason requires belief in the 
still more remarkable and unaccountable miracle—that those 
who witnessed them should have universally been led to sup- 
pose them genuine. 

The foregoing facts leave no room for any of those modern 
rationalistic theories which would explain the entire gospel 
history on natural grounds. The theory of Paulus that the 
records of miracles are ‘‘honest but uncritical interpretations 
of natural events’’ has already been sufficiently disproved. This 
theory attempts to support the honesty of the writers of the 
Gospels, but it certainly reflects severely on the integrity of 
Jesus in the light of those texts in which he testifies of his own 
miracles, as in the message he sent back by John the Baptist’s 
messengers (Luke 7:22). The mythical theory of Strauss 
assumes that as a result of the prevailing Messianic ideas of the 
Jews that miracles would be worked by the Messiah when he 
came, the people unconsciously objectified those ideas which 
took on the form of miraculous history. But in objection it 
may well be asked, If Christ did not work such miracles, how 
did he succeed in convincing the people of his Messiahship ? 
The rationalistic theory of Renan makes Jesus an unwilling yet 
an intentional deceiver. This theory supposes that Jesus played 
the part of deception in merely pretending to work miracles in 
response to the unwelcome but popular demand for them. It 
would tell us that Jesus, who unsparingly denounced hypocrites, 
was himself constantly engaged in practicing hypocrisy; that he 
who imparted the loftiest ethical teaching men have ever known, 
constantly pretended what he knew was false; that that most spot- 
less of all lives was one long strain of deception. Such are the 
extremes to which those must go who would deny the miraculous 
elements of the Gospel history. These rationalistic theories are 
unscientific both in their methods and in their conclusions. Only 
those who are unwilling to believe in the supernatural could be 
appealed to by theories so unsound. 

4. Proof of the Resurrection of Christ-—-Another method of 
proving the genuineness of Gospel miracles is to examine the 
evidence of particular miracles. By this means we may determine 
whether the original witnesses had competent knowledge to judge 
the alleged miraculous occurrences. The greatest of all the 


126 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


miracles is the bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead. All 
others can easily be believed if this can be shown to have oc- 
curred. Also, as the apostles affirmed, it is fundamental to 
Christianity. With the credibility of the Gospel history estab- 
lished, we may properly appeal to the facts concerning the resur- 
rection there presented. Then what are the facts? Friends and 
enemies alike admit the following: 

The resurrection of Christ was predicted in the Old Testament 
by David, and was often foretold by Jesus himself. He was eruci- 
fied on a cross, and after six hours he died there. Later the execu- 
tioners, recognizing he was dead, did not break his legs to hasten 
death as they did the legs of those who were crucified with him. 
But to make sure of his death, one of them ran a spear into his 
side, which would have caused death had it not already occurred. 
A still further proof that Jesus actually died is that he was offi- 
cially pronounced dead by the centurion in answer to Pilate’s 
inquiry. He was placed in the tomb, where he lay for about thirty- 
six hours. At the end of that time his body was missing from the 
tomb in spite of the fact that the guard was there to keep the 
disciples honest and the seal wag on the door to keep the guard 
honest. 

Now, the body could have been removed only by enemies, his 
friends, or himself. Who did it? If his enemies did it, they could 
have had no other motive than to exhibit the body in disproof of 
any claims of its resurrection. But though the apostles boldly 
affirmed Christ’s resurrection before the assembled multitudes in 
Jerusalem and before the Sanhedrin itself, the enemies of Christ 
never produced his body, which they would surely have done if it 
were in their possession. Though his friends were accused of 
stealing the body, the charge was so unreasonable that Matthew, 
who relates it, rightly considers it needs no refutation. They 
lacked the courage necessary for so daring an act. It was the time 
of full moon, and Jerusalem and its environs were crowded with 
Passover pilgrims, and such a theft would certainly have been 
detected by the soldiers or others. That several soldiers on guard- 
duty should all have fallen asleep at the same time in the open 
air is altogether improbable, especially when they knew the 
penalty was death for such an, offense. Too, if they had done so 
they would not voluntarily have confessed it. Moreover, how 
could they truthfully testify to that which they said occurred 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 127 


while they were asleep? And again, if the disciples of Jesus had 
actually stolen the body, the guard would have always reproached 
them with it! but we have no record of any such thing. Still 
further, it is certain the disciples were entirely too honest thus to 
deceive. Men who uphold the high ethical standards which they 
taught and willingly die in defense of their teaching can not be 
deceivers. Then the body of Jesus must have been removed by 
Jesus himself, as he had foretold. 

But the most certain evidence of his resurrection is the dif- 
ferent appearances of Jesus to his disciples in his resurrected 
body, after his death. Twelve times, by many witnesses, he was 
seen alive after his burial. These witnesses talked with him, ate 
with him, and handled him. They even saw in his hands and feet 
the prints of the nails by which he was fastened to the cross. 
These appearances continued over a period of forty days. Luke 
rightly calls these ‘‘infallible proofs.’’ These appearances were 
witnessed by a number of persons in most instances, and at one 
time by more than five hundred persons. These experiences of 
the disciples could not have been the result of hallucination or 
the product of imagination and enthusiasm. If they could have, 
they would have continued and increased constantly as a result 
of the emotional excitement from which they originated. But 
at the end of forty days they suddenly stopped. They can not 
be accounted for on the ground of imposition, because the dis- 
ciples were not only too honest, but also too unlearned success- 
fully to practise it. Neither can the disciples properly be 
charged with being unduly credulous. Instead, they were ‘‘slow 
to believe.’’ Yet the resurrection of their Master was so cer- 
tain to them that the belief of it gave them a remarkable degree 
of boldness, which enabled them to proclaim this great truth 
everywhere. The unwavering faith the apostles had in the resur- 
rection of Christ is such that F. C. Baur, the ablest representa- 
tive of the skeptical critics, confesses that no explanation can 
be given for it. ‘‘There is only one explanation—namely, that 
the fact occurred.’’ 

5. Evidential Value of Miracles——The purpose of the Scrip- 
ture miracles is to attest the doctrines taught there as being 
true. They are not, however, direct evidence of the truth of 
those doctrines, else a new miracle must have been given in proof 
of each new doctrine taught. They indirectly attested the mes- 


128 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


sage taught by certifying to the divine authority of the religious 
teacher who worked them and delivered the message. But mir- 
acles alone do not prove a man to be a divinely commissioned 
teacher. He must not only work miracles, but they must be 
accompanied with purity of life and doctrine. If he certainly 
teaches contrary to previously well-attested revelations, or if 
his manner of life is contradictory to them, he can not be of 
God whatever may be his works. 

(1) Counterfeit miracles. These consist in supernatural or 
wonderful events attributable to evil spirits or by men through 
natural means beyond our knowledge. They are not miracles 
in the truest sense. They include all supernatural events accom- 
plished through spiritualism or sorcery. Examples of them’ are 
whatever supernatural works may have been done by the Egyp- 
tian magicians who withstood Moses, those of Simon the sorcerer 
at Samaria, or those cures and other supernatural events which 
accompany modern spiritualism. It is not unreasonable nor un- 
biblical that demon spirits should do extraordinary works for 
the purpose of better deceiving men. Under the heading of coun- 
terfeit miracles may also be classed the spurious miracles im- 
puted to Jesus in the apocryphal writings, and evidently at least 
some of the medieval miracles so called. 

These counterfeit miracles may be distinguished from the 
genuine in various ways. If, ag in the case of modern, spiritual- 
ism, they are performed by persons of immoral conduct, or are 
contradictory in teaching to truth already revealed, they are 
not proof that such persons are divinely commissioned. Also, 
true miracles have a sufficient purpose which they are designed 
to accomplish. Again, they must be of a degree of dignity 
becoming to the divine working, and have sufficient substan- 
tiating evidence. 

(2) Modern miracles. Though it is true that the greatest 
manifestations of miracles have taken place at those periods 
when special revelations of truth needed to be attested, as at the 
times of Moses, the prophets, and Christ, yet this does not ex- 
clude divine miraculous working at all times as a matter of 
benevolence, or for the purpose of further certifying to men of 
that place and age God’s existence or revelation already given. 
It is according to Scripture and the experience of the best Chris- 
tians in all ages that God answerg prayer; and not only that he 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 129 


answers, but that some of those answers are supernatural and 
miraculous in their nature. Modern miracles are becoming more 
common continually, especially in the supernatural healing of 
the sick through prayer and faith. Doubtless miracles have 
occurred to a greater or less extent all through the centuries, 
among devout people. 

One purpose of modern miracles may be to assist those in 
need of such help as is not possible by processes of nature. 
A second purpose is doubtless the direct manifestation of God’s 
love and benevolence to draw out men’s love for him. But 
doubtless another and important purpose is to give special direct 
proof of God’s existence and to attest further the Scriptures as 
divine revelation. A modern miracle of the nature of an an- 
swer to prayer and faith in the specific promises of Scripture is 
a direct evidence of the divine authority of the Scriptures to 
those who have the proof of such miracles. Doubtless God has 
not left himself without such witness in all ages. 


V. Prophecy 


By prophecy as used in the present connection is not meant 
the making known of the will of God generally, but rather, more 
restrictedly, the predicting of future events. In this sense proph- 
ecy may be described as a foretelling of future events that can 
not be foreknown by human wisdom, but only by means of direct 
communication, from God. The possibility of prophecy presents 
no difficulty if we allow that God is a person and is possesssed 
of infinite knowledge. As God may attest his messengers by 
manifesting his omnipotence through them in miracles, so like- 
wise it is also antecedently probable that he should manifest his 
omniscience through them in predicting future events for the 
same purpose. 

1. Nature of the Argument from Fulfilled Prophecy.—The future 
is hidden from our view as by a thick veil hanging immediately 
before each of us. We can not know certainly by any human 
wisdom what tomorrow will bring forth. We may reason from 
existing’ causes or past experience that certain events are prob- 
able, but in such reasonings the element of uncertainty must be 
given a place. We may predict that a man in good health will 
die and be fairly sure that our prediction will not fail; but if 
we attempt the prediction that a particular person will die 


130 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


at; noon ten years from the first day of the present month at a 
particular. point of latitude and longitude in the ocean, where 
he will drown as a result of falling from an airplane, and add 
to these particulars the place of his residence at that time, and 
the nature of his vocation—who will say there is the least pos- 
sibility of the prediction being fulfilled? There is not one 
chance in a million that it will come to pass. It is such minute 
particulars, as well as their exalted purpose, their great number 
and variety, and the length of time they cover, that place the 
Bible prophecies infinitely above all human guesses. 

Only to God and to those to whom he reveals them can 
future events be certainly known. The Scripture-writers, claim- 
ing to be divinely sent messengers, predicted, in many details, 
events which came to pass centuries later. Therefore the mes- 
sages of such men are proved to be of God; for it is certain 
divine aid would not be given for the advancement of decep- 
tion or fraud. Prophecy is a species of miracle, being a mani- 
festation of divine knowledge as other miracles are manifesta- 
tions of divine power. It has no evidential value until ful- 
filled; but when it is fulfilled it has weight fully as great as 
that of miracles in attestation of revelation. Though in its 
nature it is no more conclusive as Christian evidence than are 
miracles, yet to most men, especially those not trained to judge 
the value of evidence, the proof from prophecy is far more im- 
pressive. The proof from prophecy is not dependent upon an- 
cient testimony and the genuineness and eredibility of the histor- 
ical writings transmitting such testimony to us, but is before our 
eyes in the present-day fulfilment of various predictions of 
Seripture. Another important consideration concerning the 
argument from prophecy is that it grows continually stronger 
during the years with every new fulfilment. 

No attestation can be more certain proof of the divine author- 
ity of the Scriptures than the fulfilment of their prophecy. A fair 
evaluation of them as evidence excludes the idea of fraud. They 
are too far-reaching as to time to be anything but true. They 
began to be uttered in Eden immediately after man’s fall into 
sin, and are continued throughout Bible history. Their ful- 
filment began to be accomplished hundreds of years before the 
time of Christ, and they are still being fulfilled at the present 
day. They reach from Eden to the end of the world. They are 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 131 


also very many in number, and of great variety. They predict 
concerning individuals and nations, Israel and heathen peoples, 
the Jews and the Gentiles, the kingdom of God and false relig- 
ions; but they all have a connection with the great theme of the 
Bible—Christ and salvation through him. Many of them have 
already been fulfilled. Some are yet to be fulfilled because the 
time has not yet come. But others will never be fulfilled, be- 
cause their fulfilment was made dependent upon conditions which 
were never met by the persons concerned. None.can be shown 
ever to have failed. 

Evidential value of prophecy requires that it shall have been 
given a long time before the happening of the event predicted. 
Many of the Scripture predictions possess this requisite, but 
others do not. An example of the latter is Jesus’ prediction that 
when two of his disciples should go into the near-by village they 
would ‘“‘find; an ass tied, and a colt with her’’ (Matt. 21: 2,3). 
Here the fulfilment immediately followed the prediction, and 
the event was history when written. However, to those who 
heard the prediction and later experienced the event it had 
value as evidence of Jesus’ superhuman knowledge, and on the 
strength of their testimony it has value for us the same as do 
miracles of that period. 

Another requisite in prophecy for evidential value is that 
nothing must exist to make probable the event to merely human 
prescience. If Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem 
by the Romans had been given at an advanced stage of the 
siege, it could have had but little value as evidence; but having 
been spoken forty years before, in an age of universal peace, 
and given in many details, it has great value. 

Another requirement is that it must not be ambiguous, nor yet 
be so clear as to secure its own fulfilment. Many of the Scrip- 
ture prophecies, especially those about Christ, very remarkably 
meet this requirement. An example of this is the elaborate 
prediction concerning his suffering and death given in the 
fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. What it meant and how it was to be 
fulfilled was doubtless as difficult for those living before the time 
of Christ as it was for the Ethiopian eunuch, who asked Philip 
to explain the passage to him. But to those. acquainted with 
the New Testament history it is clear. A still further and last 


132 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


requirement is that the prediction shall be fulfilled at the 
proper time. 

2. Objections to the Argument from Prophecy.—Probably the 
most common objection to prophecy as Christian evidence is that 
the alleged prophecies are not prediction but history, and were 
written after the events occurred. But such an objection is 
either the result of inexcusable ignorance or else a deliberate 
misrepresentation of the facts. Many an uninformed skeptic 
will glibly state this objection, when if called upon to do so 
he could not make the semblance of a defense of his objection. 
It is intended as a labor-saving device for opposers of divine 
revelation who do not dare with manly argument to face the 
prophecies one by one and attempt to show they are not proph- 
ecy. A certain class of modern rationalists have attempted, 
under the guise of higher criticism of the Bible, to show a later 
date for certain prophetic books of the Bible. But allowing all 
their unproved statements to be true, still many of the most 
important evidences from prophecy remain in all their strength. 
In the later discussion of particular prophecies the historical 
proof of their prophetic nature will be shown. 

A very common antecedent objection to prophecy is that all 
events are either necessary or contingent. If they are necessary 
events, it is said they are made necessary by present existing 
causes which will effect them, and consequently they may be 
foreseen and predicted by careful calculation from those causes 
by men without divine aid. If they are contingent, or dependent 
upon free choice, it is objected that they can not be foreknown 
either by God or men. If this objection were sound, no prophecy 
could have any value as evidence of divine attestation of a reve- 
lation. But the weakness of both points in the objection are 
not difficult to detect. The occurrence of most events is deter- 
mined by previously existing causes, but those causes are often 
so hidden from men that knowledge of them is impossible, and 
consequently the effects can not possibly be known. A predic- 
tion of such events constitutes valid evidence of revelation. In 
reply to the second point in the objection, it is only necessary 
to say that foreknowledge is to be clearly distinguished from 
foreordination. Knowledge is not determinative of an event, 
but is determined by the event. The knowledge is according to 
the event that is to occur, but the event is not caused by the fore- 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 133 


knowledge of it by either God or man. God being omniscient 
may foreknow contingent events, and by making them known 
through his messenger give evidence to all men that such mes- 
senger’s message is from God. 

A third objection is that many of the Seripture prophecies 
are so obscure that a eritical thinker can not be certain he under- 
stands to what the prediction refers, and consequently can not 
know whether it has been fulfilled. In reply it may be said that 
there are many predictions which are clear and their meaning 
certain. It is to these that Christian apologists appeal. We need 
not concern ourselves here about the obscure prophecies; future 
history may make evident the meaning of some of them. It is 
unnecessary to our present purpose to show that a large pro- 
portion of the Seripture prophecies have been fulfilled. If it 
is clearly shown that a few of them are genuine predictions of 
events men could not possibly know, then those prove the Scrip- 
tures to be from God. A proper conception of the purpose of 
prophecy is helpful in accounting for the obscurity of some 
of it. It is not for the purpose of furnishing in detail a plan of 
the future. Neither is it intended to be profitable only as Chris- 
tian evidence to those who live after its fulfilment. It is intend- 
ed to benefit thosa who live before the occurrence of the events 
predicted by making known to them in broad general outline 
things to come, and in this way to encourage the hopeless and to 
warn the careless to be prepared for the future. Notable exam- 
ples of this kind are the prophecies of Christ’s first and second 
advent. Certainly many prophecies have value in this respect 
that are of no apologetical worth. 

Another objection to prophecy as Christian evidence is that 
spiritualists through communication with demons are also able 
to predict future events. Allowing the truth of the objection, 
still, as with miracles from the same source, there is no need 
of confusing these with divinely given prophecies to the weaken- 
ing of the latter as Christian evidence. The predictions of spiritu- 
alistie mediums are usually concerning things of very insignifi- 
cant consequence in comparison with the Bible predictions. Also, 
they are very far below those of Scripture in the time spanned 
by them, their dignity, and purpose. And, too, they often fail 
of fulfilment, which would indicate they proceed from a finite 
being even though other than human. Moreover prophecy 


134 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


does not stand alone as evidence, but must be corroborated by 
holy conduct and doctrine in harmony with that already divinely 
revealed. Spiritualistic mediums fail in these points. 

The Bible prophecies may be classified as follows: Predictions 
(1) about the Jews, (2) about Gentile nations, (3) about 
Christ’s first coming, (4) about the origin and history of God’s 
kingdom, (5) about Christ’s second advent. For obvious rea- 
sons the latter class has no evidential value. Space allows a 
consideration of but a few examples from the other classes. 

3. Predictions Concerning the Jews——Many prophecies are giv- 
en in the Bible respecting the Jews, most of which have been 
wonderfully fulfilled. Attention might be directed to such as 
those relating to the Babylonish captivity and the return, or to 
Jesus’ remarkable prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem 
by the Romans, which was very definitely fulfilled in many 
details forty years later. But that the skeptic may have no 
ground for any of the objections mentioned, especially that the 
account is history, and was written subsequently to the events 
described, attention is directed to predictions given at the 
beginning of Israelitish history which did not begin to be ful- 
filled until after the beginning of the Christian dispensation, 
and in some important particulars are being fulfilled at the 
present time. 

In the twenty-eighth of Deuteronomy is given a detailed 
prediction of the punishments that should come upon the Jews 
if they should violate the covenant with God which they had 
solemnly agreed to keep. The minuteness of the description of 
these judgments shows them tq be prophecy, not a mere appre- 
hension of calamities resulting from wrong-doing. These pre- 
dictions were uttered by Moses before 1400 B. C. That the Old 
Testament existed long before the time of Christ is easily shown 
by reference to Jewish writers, the Septuagint Version, and by 
the quotations from the New Testament writings, which have 
already been proved genuine. The infidel historian Gibbon 
states these Old Testament writings existed as early as 250 B. C., 
when they were translated from the Hebrew into Greek. Cer- 
tainly his testimony should be acceptable as to the early exist- 
ence of the prediction. 

Though a few of the events described in this chapter of 
eurses for disobedience came upon the Jews at the time of the 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 135 


Babylonish captivity, yet careful consideration shows many of 
them did not reach a fulfilment then and so must be referred to 
a later time. The fulfilment of this prophecy began with the 
destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. ‘‘The Lord shall bring 
a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as 
swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not 
understand; a nation of fierce countenance, which shall not re- 
gard the person of the old, nor show favor to the young.’’ The 
Romans were literally from ‘‘far,’’ and were almost as remote 
as any people of whom the ancient Israelites knew. Their 
language was not only different from that of Israel, but it was 
of a different family of languages. The rapidity of their con- 
quests is well described as ‘‘swift as the eagle flieth.’’ And 
their ruthlessness in war has seldom been surpassed. 

Now how could Moses naturally suppose the instrument of 
Israel’s punishment for their rejection of Jehovah and cruci- 
fixion of his Son would come from a remote point, the most dis- 
tant known, would come with rapidity, would speak a strange 
tongue, and be especially merciless? Had he been guessing, 
he would have referred their overthrow to one of the several 
powerful near-by nations which surrounded Israel. 

It is further predicted that their destruction was not to re- 
sult from a battle in the open, although they fought many such 
battles. Neither was it to be by a surprize attack on their city. 
‘*He shall besiege thee in all thy gates.’’ And though this 
siege was to culminate in the breaking down of their ‘‘ fenced 
walls,’’ yet that was not to oceur until after a long siege during 
which there should be awful famine. And during this famine, 
fathers and mothers would kill and eat their own children. 
When all these details are compared with the facts as related 
by the Jewish historian Josephus, who was an eye-witness of 
those awful events and who describes them in great detail, 
these ancient predictions of Moses read like history, they so 
exactly agree with the events. 

The unwillingness of skepties to allow prophecy might cause 
them to affirm that these remarkable fulfilments are but coin- 
cidences, but what insane credulity could attribute to coinci- 
dence other details in the predictions that follow? The great 
slaughter during the siege was to leave them ‘‘few in number.”’ 
Such were the facts. Of those who survived the siege it is pre- 


136 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


dicted ‘‘the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the 
one end of the earth even unto the other.’’ ‘‘ Ye shall be plucked 
from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.’’ The dis- 
persion of the Jews among the nations is well known. No other 
people has been so widely scattered for so many hundreds of 
years and yet retained its identity. They are yet today scat- 
tered among all nations in both hemispheres. According to 
recent statistics they are distributed as follows: Central and 
Western Europe, 9,250,000; United States, 3,800,000; other parts 
of North America, 125,000; South America, 108,000; Siberia, 
Central Asia, and Asia Minor, 325,000; Syria and Mesopotamia, 
140,000; Northern Africa, 280,000; and in Palestine, less than 
100,000. 

Yet they were to preserve their identity as a race. So much 
is implied in the sufferings to beset them in the lands where 
they were to be scattered. This is one of the marvels of history. 
Other nations who have been carried away as captives from 
their native land have been absorbed by the peoples among 
whom they sojourned. But not so with the Jews. They are as 
distinct a people today as they were two thousand years ago. 
Though for nineteen hundred years they have been a race of 
persecuted wanderers, without a country of their own, without 
a civil government, the chief ceremonies and institutions of their 
religion (which had been their main unifying force) gone, yet 
they maintain a distinct racial existence! May we not ask 
again, How did Moses know fifteen hundred years before it 
began to come to pass that such an improbable history should 
be that of his people? 

But is was still further predicted that this people should 
ever be despised and persecuted. ‘‘And among these nations 
shalt thou find no ease. ... And thy life shall hang in doubt 
before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have 
none assurance of thy hife’’ (vs. 65, 66). Such is Jewish history 
wherever they have gone. Where have they not been despised, 
persecuted, massacred? In the early centuries of our era, during 
the Middle Ages, at the time of the Crusades, following the Refor- 
mation, in recent centuries cruel massacres have been their por- 
tion. These have occurred in Germany, England, France, Spain, 
Russia, and in almost every land where Jews have lived in con- 
siderable numbers. Even today in America, the land of reli- 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 137 


gious freedom, they are still a persecuted people, opposed by 
secret societies, by various periodicals and books, and to a con- 
siderable extent ostracized by society generally. How did Moses 
know more than three thousand years ago that such would be 
the fortunes of his people at this time? Let the skeptic answer. 

The evangelist Luke, in describing that same destruction 
of Jerusalem as foretold by Jesus but forty years before it 
occurred, said, ‘‘And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, 
and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem 
shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the 
Gentiles be fulfilled’? (Luke 21:24). For nearly nineteen hun- 
dred years Jerusalem has been in the hands of the Gentiles, 
and though the Jews have desired and tried earnestly to regain 
possession of it they have never been able to do so. The 
Roman emperor Julian the Apostate, for the distinct purpose 
of disproving this prophecy, endeavored at great expense and 
trouble to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem and restore it to 
the Jews; but his efforts were utterly fruitless. The decision 
of those who have very recently studied the situation critically 
and at close range is that there is no indication that the Jews 
will again possess their city. This prediction of Jesus and those 
of Moses could not have been thus accurately given in detail 
by any human foresight, but only by revelation of God. There- 
fore we know they were messengers approved of God. 

4, Predictions Concerning Christ-—The first prophecy was a 
prediction of the coming of Christ, and was given immedi- 
ately after the fall and before the expulsion of Adam and 
Eve from Eden. It was predicted that the seed of the woman 
would bruise the head of the serpent, and this was doubtless 
fulfilled in Christ’s overcoming Satan and sin, which were 
represented by the serpent. The Old Testament Scriptures 
are filled with predictions of and allusions to the coming Christ 
and his salvation. That these were written centuries before 
the events, has been shown. Not only in word-prophecies is 
this portrayed, but also in acted prophecies, or types and in- 
stitutions of the Old Testament. The passover lamb was a 
remarkable prophecy of Christ given fifteen hundred years 
before the Christian era. A definite and most remarkable word- 
prophecy is found in Isa. 9:6, 7—‘‘For unto us a child is born, 
unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his 


138 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


shoulders: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, 
The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 
Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be 
no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, 
to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice 
from henceforth even forever.’’ Because Jesus Christ came 
and exactly fulfilled these predictions, as no mere man could 
have done, we have proof, not only of the divine authority of 
the Seriptures, but also of the divinity of Christ. 

The exact time of Christ’s coming was foretold by the 
prophet Daniel in his seventy -weeks’ prophecy in Dan. 9 :24-27. 
‘<Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy 
holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, 
and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in ever- 
lasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, 
and to anoint the most holy’’ (v. 24). That this prediction 
refers to Christ is certain from the fact that he is named in 
verse 26. As in many other time-prophecies of Scripture, the 
day is here representative of a year, the week meaning, not 
‘seven days, but seven years. This was not an idea uncommon 
to the ancient Jews, for they were well acquainted with the 
week of years. Their law required that they leave their land 
untilled every seventh year, that the land might rest ag they 
rested from work each seventh day. The seventy weeks were 
to be counted from the going forth of the command to restore 
and rebuild Jerusalem mentioned in Ezra 7. This, according 
to the common Bible chronology, was 457 B. C. Counting 
seventy weeks, or 490 years, from this date, we have A. D. 33. 
At this date all the things mentioned had been fulfilled. The 
first of these events was the anointing of the Most Holy. ‘‘Unto 
the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and three score and 
two weeks’’ (Dan. 9:25). This brings us to 26 A. D., the very 
year of Christ’s baptism and anointing for his ministry. Ac- 
cording to all dependable Bible chronologists, Christ was born 
four years before the common date given for his birth. After 
the sixty-nine weeks, Messiah was to be eut off. How long after 
it is not stated in verse 26, but by reference to verse 27 it is 
learned that in the midst of the week ‘‘the sacrifice and the obla- 
tion’’ should cease, which took place when Christ, the true 
sacrifice, died on the cross. During the three and one half 


EXTERNAL EVIDENCES 139 


years following, the covenant was confirmed with many for 
one week—seven years (see v. 27). Thus the time of the most 
important events in the history of the world was plainly fore- 
told to the very year nearly five hundred years beforehand. 

The place of Christ’s birth was foretold as follows: ‘“‘But 
thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the 
thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto 
me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been 
from of old, from everlasting’’ (Mic. 5:2). Here the Son of 
God is referred to as the Eternal one. This prophecy was 
uttered seven centuries before Christ came. That Christ was 
‘born in Bethlehem is a fact so notorious that comment is un- 
necessary. 

In various seriptures it is predicted that Christ should be 
descended from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and David. The 
genealogies of Christ given in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke 
show that it came to pass. His genealogy was on the public 
records at the time these Gospels were written, and if the Gospel 
writers had not told the truth, they would certainly have been 
exposed by opposers. They would not have dared to falsify 
in so important a matter. On this fulfilment the Jewish Chris- 
tians would especially rest their faith. ‘ 

In that wonderful fifty-third chapter of Isaiah are given at 
least ten separate predictions about Christ the fulfilment of 
which is so commonly known that the mere mention of the pre- 
dictions is all that is necessary: 

(1) ‘‘There is no beauty that we should desire hvm’’ (vy. 2). 
Because Christ came not with worldly pomp as an earthly king, 
he was not accepted by the Jews, who were waiting for him. 

(2) “He 1s despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, 
and acqumnted with grief’’ (v. 3). 

(3) ‘But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was 
bruised for our iniquities’’ (v. 5). That he was wounded and 
bruised undeservingly is well known. 

(4) ‘‘He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened 
not his mouth’’ (v. 7). When falsely accused and abused by 
his captors, ‘‘he answered never a word.’’ 

(5) “‘He was taken from prison and from judgment’? (v. 
8). Neither before nor after his trial was he put in prison as 


140 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


was Barabbas, and as accused or condemned men are, but was 
arrested, tried, and executed all in a few hours’ time. 

(6) ‘‘He was cut off out of the land of the living’’ (v. 8). 
Christ was killed—he did not die a natural death. 

(7) ‘‘He made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich 
in his death’’ (v. 9). He was buried in the sepulcher intended 
for a rich man, and it was guarded by wicked soldiers. 

(8) ‘‘He shall prolong his days’’ (v. 10). After death, his 
days were to continue, which is a clear prediction of his resur- 
rection from the dead. 

(9) *‘He was numbered with the transgressors’’ (v. 12). 
He was crucified between two thieves, and died as a criminal. 

(10) ‘‘He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for 
the transgressors’’ (v. 12). He suffered that others might be 
saved from suffering for sin, and he prayed for his enemies 
while he was hanging on the cross. 

These predictions indeed read like a fifth Gospel history of 
the life of Christ. Yet we know on the best authority that they 
were written hundreds of years before Christ’s coming. The 
many details predicted about Christ, not only those given here, 
but the many other prophecies so wonderfully and exactly ful- 
filled, their number, variety, great sweep, the time spanned by 
them, and their exalted nature, are sure marks of divine fore- 
knowledge. 

The prophet Micaiah, when imprisoned by Ahab for prohesy- 
ing adversely concerning a battle Ahab was soon to enter, said, 
‘Tf thou return at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken by me’”’ 
(1 Kings 22:28). Like Micaiah, we can safely rest the divine 
authority of the Scriptures upon the fulfilments of its prophe- 
cies, because they never fail, and their fulfilment is proof that 
God has indeed spoken by the Bible. 


Cuaprer III 
INTERNAL EVIDENCES 


Internal evidences are so designated because they are found 
within the Bible itself, which is not true for the most part of the 
evidences thus far considered. In a former chapter a distinc- 
tion was made between authenticating and rational evidences. 
The external proofs are authenticating in nature. They furnish 
reasons why we should believe the Bible is true. Internal 
evidences are, in a great measure, of the class of rational proofs. 
While they show why we should BELIEVE the Bible is true, 
they also, many of them, show why it IS true in important par- 
ticulars. This class of proofs seeks to show that the Bible 
teaching is consistent with the character of God and with the 
nature and needs of man as they may be known from sources 
other than revelation. It is the argument so ably set forth by 
Bishop Butler in his famous work ‘‘ Analogy of Religion, Na- 
tural and Revealed.’’ If the Scriptures are in harmony with 
the light of nature, if they agree with the intuitions of man’s 
moral reason, if they are adapted to his soul’s needs, they must 
be true; and if in addition they greatly augment the light of 
nature while they perfectly harmonize with it, they must be 
from Him who constituted nature. Many of the internal proofs, 
however, are exclusively authenticating in their nature. 


J. Perfect Doctrines 


The doctrines of the Scriptures are in harmony with reli- 
gious truth known intuitively. 

1. God’s Being and Attributes—Intelligent men everywhere 
and in all ages have believed in the existence of a personal 
Supreme Being. This belief has been shown to be the fruit of 
both the intuitive faculty and the logical reason. God has com- 
monly been regarded as being infinite in all perfections. This is 
also the idea of God that is presented in the Bible. In this partie- 
ular the Scriptures are in harmony with the light of nature. But 
they do not merely tell us what may be known naturally about 
God. They afford a conception of his being and attributes that is 
at once recognized as much more perfect than can be known with- 
out revelation. No such lofty representation of God is to be 


found in any other than the Bible religion. The Scriptures could 
141 


142 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


not be reasonably regarded as divine revelation if they upheld 
pantheism, as does Hinduism; nor if they taught atheism, as 
does Buddhism. Neither could they be accepted if they repre- 
sented God as being cruel, unjust, licentious, or malignant, as 
heathen religions sometimes represent him. The approval of com- 
mon sense is upon the delineation of hig character as given in 
the Seriptures. 

2. Man’s Moral Responsibility and Freedom.—The Bible repre- 
sents man ag having been created in the image of God, as 
possessing moral freedom, It constantly makes prominent the 
idea that because man has free will he is therefore responsible 
for his conduct. It states by both principle and precept what 
he shall do and what he shall not do. It promises reward for 
obedience and punishment for disobedience. The idea of man’s 
moral responsibility is fundamental in the teachings of Serip- 
ture. It is clearly implied in God’s dealings with man from 
the time of his creation. It is implied in every commandment, 
in every promise of blessing, in all warnings of Judgments, in 
the life and death and atonement of Jesus, and in all the work 
of salvation. The free moral agency of men is also an intuition. 
Everywhere men recognize the feeling of ought and ought not. 
It is so where men are unacquainted with the Bible. If the 
Bible had denied free will and moral responsibility to man, as 
various philosophies have done, then its contradiction of man’s 
intuition and feelings of obligation would prove it not to be 
from God. But its harmony with those great facts of man’s 
consciousness, and especially its greater clearness and light on 
the subject, is evidence that what the Bible says, God says. 

3. Man’s Depravity and Guilt—The Scriptures everywhere 
teach that man is sinful. He is described as being sinful in 
character as well as in conduct. The origin of sinfulness is 
shown in the third chapter of Genesis; and all the way through, 
the Bible makes prominent the idea that this sinfulness of men 
is a ground for their need of salvation. They are described as 
guilty and deserving of punishment because of transgression of 
God’s law. Transgression results in sinful character, and sinful 
character in turn leads to further sinful acts. This sinfulness 
of character, or depravity of the nature, is specifically men- 
tioned in some texts and definitely implied in many. The Scrip- 
ture teachings of depravity and guilt agree exactly with the 


INTERNAL EVIDENCES 143 


common consciousness of mankind. This sense of sinfulness is 
shown among heathen people by their offering propitiatory sac- 
rifices on their altars, and by their various forms of asceticism 
and penance. The Bible makes clear distinctions between moral 
and physical evil. It far surpasses for clearness all conceptions 
of evil that are possible without it, though it is in harmony with 
men’s consciousness in this respect. If it denied moral evil as 
have philosophies in some instances, if it confused moral with 
physical evil as is done by some heathen religions, or if it dis- 
allowed natural depravity as does Pelagianism, then it could 
not be accepted as truth, nor as divine revelation. But by 
recognizing these great truths of human consciousness, and by 
setting them in a clearer light than can otherwise be known, it 
shows itself to be, not only truth, but from the Source of truth, 
by the perfection of its doctrine. 

4. Man’s Spirituality and Immortality—Another example of 
the perfect doctrine of the Bible is its teaching that man has a 
spiritual nature and that he is immortal. The Bible makes a 
clear distinction between the body and the spirit. The spirit is 
described as being made in the image of God and as being im- 
mortal like him. The immortality of the soul is everywhere as- 
sumed in the Bible. It is fundamental to Scriptural teaching 
generally. Without this doctrine the Bible would be meaning- 
less. Concerning life beyond this life the Bible gives no un- 
certain sound. It is definite and positive. Materialists deny 
immortality, and deists and rationalists question it, but men 
everywhere and in all ages intuitively recognize themselves as 
being immortal. No man can confidently and constantly deny 
it. If, like the ancient Sadducees, the Scriptures contradicted 
the common consciousness and intuition of men concerning im- 
mortality, then they could not be accepted as true. But by 
teaching these truths, the Bible is shown to be true, and by its 
much greater clearness of teaching about immortality it is shown 
to be from God. 

5. Present Probation and Future Retribution—The Scriptural 
doctrines already mentioned, especially the idea of moral re- 
sponsibility, imply another fundamental truth—present proba- 
tion, or that men in this life are on trial. Present probation neces- 
sarily implies still another important fundamental truth—future 
retribution. The unequal apportionment of the blessings and 


144 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


sorrows of life is evident on every hand. Not infrequently the 
wicked man prospers and spreads himself like the green bay- 
tree, while the righteous suffers affliction, persecution, and even 
death by martyrdom. All this implies and requires for the sake 
of justice that there shall be a proper adjustment of rewards 
and punishments beyond this life. The Bible most clearly and 
positively teaches probation here and retribution hereafter. In 
this teaching it is exactly in harmony with the light of nature. 
All men are naturally conscious of these two truths. In believ- 
ing them, they believe the teaching of the Bible. To deny free 
will, moral responsibility, sin, spirituality of man, and immor- 
tality logically requires the denial of present probation and 
retribution hereafter. Jf the Bible denied any of these funda- 
mental religious truths, it could not be accepted as truth; but 
its support of them, and especially the definiteness of its teach- 
ing, such as men have not known of themselves, is evidence that 
it is God’s Word. 


Il. Perfect Adaptation to Man’s Needs 

Besides those doctrines of the Bible that are known more or 
less by intuition, another class of doctrines is set forth that may 
be known only by revelation. To this latter category belong 
such doctrines as the trinity of God, the divine-human nature 
of Christ, the atonement, salvation by faith, and the resurrec- 
tion of the body. Though these doctrines are not knowable by 
intuition nor reason, yet they correspond very remarkably to 
needs of man’s nature and what can be intuitively known. And 
this exact correspondence commends them to us as being true 
and of God. 

1. Salvation from Sin and Depravity—That man is depraved, 
guilty, and liable to punishment has been shown. His need of 
pardon and of restoration from his depraved condition is cer- 
tain; but nature offers no remedy for his spiritual needs. Men 
try by their own works to gain justification. They pray, afflict 
themselves, give alms, and do many other things, but get no 
assurance of acceptance with God. But the Bible supplies this, 
man’s greatest need. It offers free pardon of sin. Reason says, 
however, that it is inconsistent with God’s holiness for him to 
pardon except atonement be made to show that God is upright 
and worthy of respect as moral ruler. Such an atonement is 
clearly set forth in the Bible. Pardon is granted only through 


INTERNAL EVIDENCES 145 


faith in Christ, who made the atonement. This atonement re- 
quires a God-man to effect it, and such is the Savior set forth 
in the Bible. But pardon of past sing is useless unless the 
reigning power of depravity is overcome so men can refrain 
from further sinning. The Bible promises regeneration ag an 
accompaniment of pardon. Here again the provisions of the 
Bible correspond exactly with the needs of a man in furnish- 
ing what he lacks. The doctrines of revealed religion wonder- 
fully complement those of natural religion. They promise the 
supply of a great need of human nature which is not supplied 
from any other source. The wonderful adaptation of the supply 
to the need is strong reason for assuming that the scriptures 
which make known that supply must be God’s revelation. 

2. Enlightenment and Comfort.—After man is justified and re- 
generated, he still has needs. His knowledge is too limited to 
discern what he should do under many of life’s circumstances. 
He is often at a loss to know what would please God, or what 
course should be followed in affairs which often have an impor- 
tant bearing on his spiritual and eternal well-being. He feels 
the need of enlightenment and a superior guiding intelligence. 
And amidst the sorrows and troubles of life, he recognizes the 
need of a friend who can furnish consolation in his distress. For 
the supply of these needs the Bible points to the Holy Spirit of 
God, who will come into the believer’s life as a guide and com- 
forter. Here again the supply is exactly adapted to the need. 
And who but God could have conceived of a supply so perfectly 
fitted to the need? 

3. Resurrection of the Body——A_ still further illustration of 
that remarkable correspondence of revealed with natural theol- 
ogy is the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. Doubtless 
it is not possible by intuition nor the logical reason to know that 
the dead physical body will be raised to life again. But both 
intuition and reasoning lead to belief in life after death. The 
immortality of the soul is commonly believed, without revelation. 
But man was created both body and spirit. The body is a part 
of himself, of his essential nature. Is it therefore unreasonable 
that his body should so soon be lost to him forever? The resur- 
rection of the body, then, is necessary to the satisfaction of a 
normal and instinctive desire of man’s soul and a preservation 
of an essential part of his nature. The Bible doctrine of the res- 


146 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


urrection of the dead has done more than all human theories 
eombined effectually to expel the darkness of the tomb. Its 
adaptation to the supply of so deep a need of man’s nature is 
reason for believing it is true and from God. 

Could a religion so wonderfully adapted to man’s needs, so 
perfectly harmonious with the light of nature, so exalted in char- 
acter have come from any human wisdom, and especially from 
those humble Galileans by whom Christianity began to be 
preached ? 

III. Perfect Morals 

The Seriptures very clearly distinguish between right and 
wrong in men’s conduct. The ethical standard of the Bible, and 
especially as set forth in the teachings of Jesus, is by far the most 
lofty men have ever known. Alk men admit that it greatly sur- 
passes any other ever taught. That it is so is evident by compar- 
ison of it with the ethics of the wisest and best of human phil- 
osophers—Socrates, Plato, or Seneca. Whatever excellence is 
to be found in the ethical systems of these men they are marred 
by inconsistencies and glaring errors that place them infinitely 
below the moral standard of the New Testament. This excel- 
lence of the ethical standard of the Bible is further shown by 
the fact that the leaders of non-Christian religions today are 
seeking to adapt their moral and ethical standards to those of 
the religion of Jesus. This standard is not only better than all 
others, but it is perfect. It not only agrees with our intuitive 
ideas of right, but the very statements of it leads one intuitively 
to recognize it as perfectly right. In this perfection is abundant 
reason, not only for believing it is right, but also for believing 
it is from God, who alone is perfect. 

1. A Perfect Standard of Right—The ethical standard of the 
Bible is a perfect standard of right because of its comprehen- 
siveness. It enjoins every duty, even the most commonly neg- 
lected and misunderstood, and it permits no evil whatsoever. It 
does not consist of a mere code of rules imposed, but rather of 
sound general principles. The Bible gives precepts, however, 
which have great value in giving definiteness to and in illustrat- 
ing its ethical principles. The great foundational principle of 
Christian ethics is love. The Bible enjoins supreme love to God 
and equal love to one’s fellow men. ‘‘Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all 


INTERNAL EVIDENCES 147 


thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thy- 
self.’’ On these hang all the ethical teachings of the Scriptures. 
He who loves will fulfil all moral precepts. If one loves his fel- 
low men as himself, he will keep the Golden Rule—‘‘ All things 
whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even 80 
to them.’’ It is not merely negative, in forbidding us to do what 
we would not have others do to us; but it requires that we do 
positive good to others according to this rule. Such a standard 
could not be improved. It is in its nature absolutely perfect. 

2. A Perfect Measurement of Conduct.— Again, the ethics of the 
Bible are perfect in their method of judging the moral quality 
of actions. Mere external conformity to right precepts is not 
accepted as right, except as the motive prompting such actions 
is right. ‘‘Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath 
committed adultery with her already in his heart.’’ The motive 
for an action is that which determines the desert of him who does 
it. If he mistakenly believes an act is wrong that is not in its 
essential nature contradictory to any right principle nor pre- 
cept, he can not perform such an act without incurring guilt 
before God. Also, if he honestly but ignorantly believes he 
should do that which is evil according to the absolute standard 
of right, he may do it with a clear conscience. This is the only 
right standard of judgment for finite beings. Any other would 
be wrong, but this is perfect. 

3. Perfect Practicality—Though the Bible presents a very ex- 
alted standard of morals, yet it can be conformed to by all who 
will follow its directions. Obedience to the moral requirements 
of Scripture is natural to one who has that measure of love for 
God and man which he ought to have. But to have such love it 
is necessary that the rule of the depraved nature shall be over- 
come by regeneration, which is possible for all men. Without 
regeneration and the aid of the Spirit of God, full conformity 
to the ethical standard of Scripture is impossible. The Bible 
not only furnishes a perfect standard of conduct, but it also 
makes provisions for conformity to it. This latter no other teach- 
er of ethics has ever been known to do. Here again is a mark 
of perfection that indicates divine origin. 


IV. Style and Incidental Allusions 
A great variety of facts and allusions to be found in the 
Bible of the nature of circumstantial evidence might be cited in 


148 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


support of its divine authority. Many of these if taken singly 
would be inconclusive to most minds, but if considered together 
they afford positive evidence that is equal in evidential value to 
a demonstration of the divine authority of the Scriptures. To 
show the full strength of this branch of Christian evidences 
would require many volumes; and to state and appreciate them, 
much learning. We here attempt only brief mention of some of 
them as indicative of the nature, variety, and irresistible weight 
of this class of proofs. 

1. Unity of the Scriptures—-The Bible is composed of sixty- 
six distinct books, written by at least thirty-six different authors, 
during a period covering sixteen centuries. These books are not 
only many in number, but great in variety. Some of them are 
poetry, some are prose; some are books of law, some are histor- 
ical writings; some are prophecy and symbols, others are simple 
epistles. The writers wrote under a variety of circumstances, 
in many countries, to different peoples, for different purposes, 
about different subjects, in various conditions, and moved by 
different influences. These writers belonged to a variety of 
classes—kings and shepherds, courtiers and cowherds, physicians 
and farmers, scientific men and mechancis, prophets and priests, 
military leaders and tax-collectors, lawyers and fishermen, rich 
and poor, educated and illiterate. 

Being written under such conditions, it is altogether im- 
probable that there should be any unity or agreement in the 
Bible. No other book pretending to unity was ever written under 
such unfavorable circumstances. And yet the Bible, though 
composed of sixty-six distinct books, is one book. Though it has 
not less than thirty-six different human writers, it bears all the 
marks of being the work of one mind. It has a single subject 
throughout—the history of the redemption of men through 
Christ. The same spirit pervades all its books. Their one aim 
is to lead men to salvation through Christ. At first there may 
sometimes appear to be divergence and contradiction, but closer 
investigation shows remarkable agreement. The critics of many 
centuries have failed to show one real contradiction in the books 
of the Bible. Where are so many different books other than 
those of the Bible, written by as many authors, during so many 
centuries and under such a variety of circumstances, that possess 
such unity and agreement as a whole? Certainly the writers 


INTERNAL EVIDENCES 149 


eould not have planned their work together. The particular 
writers could not intentionally have fitted their writing to its 
place in the whole because the whole did not exist until the last 
book was written. Yet from Genesis to Revelation is apparent 
a remarkable gradual and progressive unfoldment of truth 
adapted to the purpose it accomplished. 

The only adequate way to account for such unity is to allow 
that it is what it claims and appears to be—the work of one 
superintending and inspiring Mind. To attribute it to chance 
requires a credulity far in excess of that with which skeptics 
charge Christian believers. As the different parts of a great 
temple are wrought by numerous workmen, in many places, and 
under different conditions, yet when brought together they all 
fit in one great whole becayise all designed by the single mind of 
the architect, so the book of revelation, though wrought by many 
minds, yet has unity and harmony because of the superintendence 
of the master mind of its Divine Architect. 

2. Languages and Literary Style—LEvery living language con- 
stantly undergoes change. New terms are added, old ones be- 
come obsolete, and meanings of terms and idioms vary. Some 
scholars find three distinct periods in the history of the Hebrew 
language. The first is that of the writings of Moses. To the 
second period belong the books of Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chron- 
icles, the poetical books, and several of the earlier prophets. This 
is the period of the purest Hebrew. To the third period belong 
the later prophets and remaining historical books. In this period 
many foreign words, phrases, and idioms became incorporated 
with the pure Hebrew. Shortly after the last book of the Old 
Testament was written, the Hebrew became a dead language. 
The Jews adopted the Aramaic language from those among whom 
they had spent the exile. All books written in the pure Hebrew 
must have been written about or before the time that change 
from the Hebrew to Aramaic took place. But the important 
point in all this in support of the genuineness of the Old Tes- 
tament books is that this gradual change in the language as 
found in these books agrees exactly with the claims of the books 
themselves as to the time of their origin. 

The Greek language also underwent many changes with the 
passing of the centuries. The New Testament was not written 
in the Greek of Homer, nor even in the classical Greek of Plato 


150 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


and Aristotle, but in that common Greek dialect which became 
prevalent in many lands of the East following the conquests of 
Alexander. With that common Greek in the New Testament is 
also mixed many Hebraisms. It is exactly such language as 
would be expected from men of ordinary literary training in cir- 
cumstances such as those of the New Testament writers and at 
that time. Here is very strong proof of the genuineness of the 
Bible—that its books were written at the time and under the con- 
ditions to which they are commonly referred. 

Likewise the literary style of the sacred books is in harmony 
with what might be expected of men of their literary attainments 
and circumstances. The distinct differences in style in these 
various books show them to be the work of different minds, not 
the product of forgery by an imposter. The style of each writer 
is in exact harmony with his character as portrayed in the writ- 
ings of himself and other Biblical writers. 

A still further confirmation is in the peculiar style of the 
various writers. Most of them were men of plain common sense 
with limited education. Paul was one who was educated and 
well read. The other writers use simple plain language, with no 
attempt at ornament of style. But when we come to Paul, the 
scholar, a larger vocabulary is noticed and the style of a man of 
culture appears. Also the peculiarities of the characters of the 
men themselves, as we know them from what is said about them, 
are shown forth in the writings of each. The boldness, energy, 
and zeal which characterizes Paul as Luke describes him in the 
Acts, are exactly the characteristics manifested in Paul’s epistles. 
These many incidental corroborations are not to be found in 
spurious writings. 

3. Historical Events—The history recorded in the Bible has 
been shown to correspond very precisely with what may be known 
from other sources concerning the same subjects. The Bible is 
very largely a book of history, and none can deny that its his- 
tory has a general agreement with secular history. Critics have 
found various points in the Bible history that were supposed at 
first to conflict with secular history, and as usual they were ready 
to attribute error to the Bible. An example of this is the men- 
tion in the Bible of Belshazzar as king of the Chaldeans. At an 
earlier period secular history gave no record of him; but in re- 
eent years Sir Henry Rawlinson has shown, by deciphering 


INTERNAL EVIDENCES 151 


cuneiform inscriptions, that he was regent during the absence 
from Babylon of his father Nabonidus, the last of the Chaldean 
kings. Here is evidence that the Book of Daniel was written 
by one who knew about this comparatively unimportant fact of 
history so intimately that he could give it its proper setting in 
the narrative. It must therefore have been written near the time 
of the events described. 

But the Bible abounds with historical allusions that required 
on the part of the writers a familiarity with the facts that is 
altogether improbable to any except those who lived at the time 
they are said to have lived. The names of the several rulers who 
the Bible states ruled various parts of Palestine during different 
periods, and under various limitations, and with different titles, 
agree precisely with the facts as furnished by authentic history 
of contemporary writers whose works have come down to us. 
Other incidental historical allusions that might be mentioned as 
examples of many others that are remarkably corroborated by 
dependable secular history is the variation of opinion among the 
Jews in Jesus’ day concerning whether it was lawful to pay 
‘‘tribute to Ceesar,’’ and the banishing of the Jews from Rome 
by Claudius Cesar (Acts 18:2). Such historical accuracy in 
minute details is possible only to a contemporary writer. 

4, Incidental Allusions.—Probably of all the internal evidences 
none have greater evidential value in proof of the genuineness 
and authenticity of the Bible for one who is willing patiently 
to investigate them and carefully weigh them than the many 
incidental allusions to customs, to contemporary history, to 
topography of the country traversed, and to personal character- 
istics of historic characters. 

An example of incidental allusion to customs is that of the 
anointing of Jesus’ feet by the woman who was a sinner. Dur- 
ing the process of the meal, she came into the Pharisee’s house 
where Jesus was reclining at the table as was the custom, the 
feet extending backward away from the table. And ‘‘she 
stood at his feet behind him . .. and anointed them with the 
ointment.’’ Only one living in a land where the custom of 
reclining at the table was prevalent would ever think of making 
such an allusion to that custom. Many such examples might 
be cited, but they are available in commentaries and works on 
Bible history. 


152 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Incidental allusions to the nature of the country traversed 
by the Israelites in passing from Egypt to Canaan, by Jesus 
in his Journeyings, or by the apostle Paul in his missionary tours 
furnishes much circumstantial evidence that the writers were 
witnesses of the territory described. For an appreciation of 
these allusions in the description of Paul’s journeys, a thoughtful 
reading of Conybeare and Howson’s ‘‘Life and Epistles of the 
Apostle Paul’’ is helpful. The evidence is conclusive that the 
writer was Paul’s fellow traveler, as is intimated in the 
account, and an eye-witness of the things described. Here is 
proof that this part of the Bible was not forged during the 
Middle Ages, as uninformed skeptics sometimes insinuate. 

A single example of the correctness of character-sketches 
of historic persons mentioned in the Bible is that of Herod the 
Great. The Gospel writer tells of his insane jealousy of the 
infant Jesus when the magi inquired for him who was ‘‘born 
king of the Jews,’’ of his subtle scheme to find Jesus that he 
might kill him, and of his eruel slaughter of the infants in 
Bethlehem. The weight of this proof is better realized in the 
light of the character of Herod as revealed in history. He was 
one of the ecruelest and most jealous men mentioned in all the 
annals of the world’s history. His jealous hate led him to 
murder his wife’s brother Aristobulus, the aged prince Hyr- 
canus, his own wife, Mariamne, whom he had loved very much, 
and his two sons Alexander and Aristobulus. How remark- 
able that Matthew should record of this same Herod that deed 
of revolting cruelty with which Bible readers are familiar! 

If the Bible were deprived of all the external evidences of 
its divine origin, it would still contain in its own pages abun- 
dant credentials of its divine authority, in its perfect doctrines, 
unrivaled ethics, perfect adaptation to man’s needs, literary 
style, and in the vast number of allusions, all of which can be 
accounted for only on the ground that it is divinely inspired 
and written by its alleged writers. 


CHAPTER IV 
EXPERIMENTAL AND COLLATERAL EVIDENCES 


The manifestation of the supernatural in any form in con- 
nection with the Scriptures or with Christianity is that which 
proves them to be of God. That in relation to Christianity 
which can not be adequately accounted for on natural grounds, 
if it meets other requirements, may be appealed to as Christian 
evidence. Branches of evidence already described are mani- 
festations of supernatural knowledge in the utterance of proph- 
ecy, and the manifestation of supernatural holiness and 
wisdom in a perfect moral and religious standard contained 
in the Scriptures. Now we purpose to show the manifestation 
of the supernatural in the effects of Christianity in the inner 
consciousness and also in the character and conduct of the in- 
dividual believer, as well as on society as a whole where it is 
preached. 

As a tree may be known by its fruits, so, Jesus taught, we 
may know teachers of religion. Also, it is proper to judge 
religions themselves by their fruits. Such a form of testing 
is universally approved and very convincing. If a tree bears 
good fruit, the goodness of the tree can not be questioned. If 
the fruits of Christianity are good, then it must be good; and 
if good, it must be of God, as it claims. If, however, it is not 
from God, its claim is false and it is evil; but if evil, its fruit 
would be evil. Because its fruit is good, therefore we know 
it is good and of God. 


I. Evidences from Christian Experience 


The experimental evidence is the most convincing and has 
been described as being the most powerful of all Christian evi- 
dences. It is one that may be easily comprehended and appre- 
ciated by the most illiterate and yet is worthy of respect from 
the most learned. It is open to all for both observation and 
trial. It is the one especially on which most true Christians 
rest their faith. 

1. Nature of Experimental Evidence—The argument from 
Christian experience is like that of the man born blind whose 


eyes Jesus opened and who said to the critics, ‘‘One thing I 
153 


154 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.’’ Likewise the 
Christian believer knows as positively and certainly that once 
he was bowed down beneath a burden of guilt and was a slave 
of sinful desire, but that now his soul is filled with peace and 
he is free from the bondage of sin. Millions of the best and 
greatest persons of all the Christian centuries have testified to 
such an experience, and it is unreasonable to believe they were 
all deceived in this great truth of their own consciousness. 
Skeptics may deny the divine power of Christianity, but in doing 
so they make themselves ridiculous to those who have experienc- 
ed its transforming influence.» An experience in the conscious- 
ness of Christians may not have direct evidential value to un- 
believers; but when millions of honest and intelligent believ- 
ers throughout the world and during many centuries testify 
constantly to such an experience, their testimony ought to be 
received. But we are not dependent upon their testimony. In 
the individual lives of believers there comes at the time of con- 
version a very radical change of character and outward conduct. 
This change is often so definite and extraordinary that it can 
be properly attributed to nothing else than the miraculous 
power of God. These are modern miracles that occur daily and 
in every city or village in lands where evangelical Christianity 
is preached. Truly God has not left his truth without witness. 
As a means of showing the force of the experimental evi- 
dence, the argument has been illustrated somewhat as follows: 
Suppose a contagious disease should break out, such as was 
the Spanish-influenza epidemic which spread over the earth at 
the close of the World War, and cause great suffering and 
death to millions. Suppose that when it begins to rage in the 
United States, intelligence should be received that a medicine 
made from the root of a tree growing in South America is a 
certain cure. The President of the United States at once sends 
a ship to South America for a supply of the medicine. In due 
time the ship returns with a cargo of what is claimed and 
appears to be the medicine. Soon it is in circulation, and 
thousands of persons in every State who are ill with the disease 
take the medicine and every one is instantly cured. These begin 
to urge the sick and dying about them to try the medicine. 
But certain persons who are interested in the spread of 
the disease raise such questions as ‘‘How do you know the ship 


EXPERIMENTAL AND COLLATERAL EVIDENCES 155 


sent by the President actually brought its cargo from South 
America ?’’ or ‘‘ How do you know this is that particular root?’’ 
Suppose they should charge the crew and officers with being 
wilful deceivers, or with ignorance as to the real source of the 
eargo they brought. Or suppose such eritics should begin ex- 
amining the roots for faults; or should attempt to disprove 
the curative qualities of the medicine by pointing to persons 
not cured who professed to have taken the medicine but who 
had not done so, or should openly deny that the medicine cures 
by telling us the sick persons were not sick, or if so, only im- 
agined they were cured. Such opposers would make themselves 
ridiculous by such questions and criticisms, and become a 
laughing-stock to all sound-thinking men. Such, however, is the 
ridiculous position of those who deny the divine origin of 
Christianity. It cures man’s moral malady. This is proof it 
is from God. If the medicine cures the disease with no bad 
effects, the other questions are of little concern to us. 

2. Effects of Christian Experience in Consciousness.—The c] aim 
of the Bible to be the book of salvation is in exact harmony with 
the experience of multitudes of Christian believers who find by 
following its directions such deep peace and soul-satisfaction as 
constitutes certain evidence to them, of the correctness of its 
claim. No knowledge can be more certain to its possessor than 
the knowledge of his own inner thoughts, emotions, desires, 
motives, and intentions. One of sinful character and vicious 
life is conscious of thoughts and emotions of a corresponding 
nature. He is conscious of a feeling of guilt before God, and of 
the impelling influence of his depraved nature to sinful deeds. 
He is cognizant of a love for the impure, and of a desire for 
association with the vicious rather than with the righteous. 

But suppose he submits himself to the claims of the gospel, 
and trusts in the mercy of God through Christ for salvation. 
Suddenly he cognizes a change in his inner consciousness—he 
is pardoned and converted. He feels like a new creature. It 
is not merely a change of belief, but of heart. He finds his 
affections no longer set on sinful and worldly things, but on 
that which is holy. Until recently he had hated God and despised 
his people, but now he loves God supremely and finds unspeak- 
able pleasure in worshiping him. And his heart is overflowing 
with tender affection for God’s people; he had formerly 


156 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


wished to avoid them, but now they are his dearest companions 
and he would live with them forever. He now detests those 
things he once loved, and thirsts for holiness. Prayer, which 
he once ridiculed, is now his chief delight. His heart, once 
hard, has suddenly become tender and full of compassion. A 
violent temper has become peaceful and mild. Where once 
selfishness reigned supreme, now exists a benevolent desire to 
do good. The selfish pride that once actuated him is now sup- 
planted by feelings of deep humility. And, better still, instead 
of those feelings of guilt that formerly filled his soul with un- 
rest and bitterness, he now féels perfect peace with God and 
‘‘Joy unspeakable and full of glory.’’ He is happy beyond 
expression. 

Such a sudden and radical change is not imaginary, but 
very real and common. It has been the experience of myriads 
of Christians throughout the ages. These changes are as cer- 
tain to their consciousness as any other facts of inner conscious- 
ness. They know them as certainly as they know their own 
existence. Such experience is, to those who possess it, undeni- 
able and direct proof that Christianity is of God. And their 
testimony ought to be received by others ag valid evidence of 
its divine origin. 

3. Effects of Christian Experience on Character.—Christian ex- 
perience affects, not only the inner consciousness of the believer, 
but also hig character and outward conduct. The skeptic may 
reject the testimony of Christians concerning their conscious- 
ness of an inner change, but this radical change in outward con- 
duct that accompanies belief in Christ is apparent even to un- 
believers. That inner change of the affections, inclinations, and 
desires that accompanies conversion is followed by a corre- 
sponding change in conduct from sinning to a life of holiness. 
The extent of this outward change is determined by the degree 
of one’s depravity and sinfulness. The change was very marked 
in the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. One moment he was a 
most bitter and determined opposer of Christianity, a proud 
enemy of righteousness wholly given up to persecution of 
Christ; the next he was a humble penitent, calling on Jesus in 
the spirit of full submission. A few days later he was preaching 
the gospel in the synagogs of Damascus. The change was sudden 
and complete in his whole character and conduct. 


EXPERIMENTAL AND COLLATERAL EVIDENCES 157 


Such changes in character at the time of conversion are not 
a few obscure instanees. They are common to Christians in all 
ages and places. Men of profligate life, abandoned to wicked- 
ness, slaves of evil habits, are instantly changed. The change 
does not result from their own will-power, but their desire for 
sinful pleasure is suddenly removed. Evil habits from which 
they had tried in vain for years to free themselves are suddenly 
broken, and they find themselves free to choose their own course 
of conduct. Yea, more, they find within them a tendency to do 
those things that are right. This change in outward conduct is 
often so marked that one must be credulous indeed to refer it 
to any natural power of man. 

That these effects are produced by the power of God through 
the gospel is evident from the fact that they are never found 
except where the gospel is preached and accepted. It is as 
reasonable to believe these are the fruits of the gospel as to believe 
the grapes gathered from a vine were produced by it rather 
than by a thorn-tree. The skeptic may say that these effects 
are the natural result of believing the teaching of the Bible. 
But if belief in a system of untruth can produce such salutary 
effects, why can not men produce other systems of doctrine 
that will bring similar results? Why ean not infidels, with all 
their boasted learning, invent a system of philosophy that will 
produce some changes in men’s lives? Why has no other system 
producing such results ever been heard of in any age through- 
out all the earth? Other beliefs have produced strong excite- 
ment, and effected great emotion, but only the gospel trans- 
forms men’s lives instantaneously. 

Added force is given to the present argument by contrasting 
the lives of Christians with those of infidels. As a class, Chris- 
tians have always been noted for goodness of character and 
uprightness of conduct. It is true particular persons profess- 
ing to be Christians are sometimes untrue to their profession 
and live sinful lives, but these are always regarded as hypo- 
eritical and exceptions to the rule. Also infidels in some in- 
stances are fairly upright in their conduct. But where evangel- 
ical Christianity is prevalent, to say a man is a Christian is to 
imply that he is of upright moral character; to say, however, 
one is an infidel is to lead one’s hearers to think he is prob- 
ably immoral and profligate in his manner of living. These 


158 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


reputations of the two classes are the result of men’s observa- 
tion and experience. 

That Christians whose hearts are engaged in their faith live 
moral lives scarcely needs to be stated. It is Christians as a 
class who go about doing positive good. They are the ones 
who seek out the poor and feed them. They are the ones who deny 
themselves that others less fortunate may be spared greater 
suffering. They establish homes for orphans, the aged, the 
blind, and the deaf and dumb. They found hospitals and 
schools, and in every noble work of benevolence take the lead. 
They unselfishly go to the ends of the earth to uplift humanity. 
Infidels may, when moved by humanitarian sentiments, by a 
selfish desire for men’s approbation, or through influences of 
the beneficent principles of Christianity, engage in such good 
works in a measure; but the fact remains, nevertheless, that 
Christians as a class are more commonly given to such things. 

The truest measure of the morality of infidels as a class are 
their greatest and most respected leaders. They might be re- 
garded as its finished products. They have formulated its prin- 
ciples, and a stream is seldom purer than its source. What is 
the exact extent of that boasted morality of infidelity as mani- 
fested by its greatest leaders? Hume, that prince of skeptics, 
is regarded by one of his friends in skepticism as being as nearly 
virtuous as human frailty will permit; but when we remember 
his teaching that suicide is commendable, that adultery is neces- 
sary to obtain all life’s advantages, and that female infidelity, 
when known, is a ight matter, and when not known is nothing, 
we can not help wondering how pure the conduct of one must 
have been who held such standards. Bolingbroke was a libertine 
whose intemperance and lust were unrestrained. Blount shot 
himself because his sister-in-law whom he had solicited to marry 
him refused. Tindal was given to vice in general and a total 
want of principle. Voltaire was noted for a violent and malig- 
nant temper, and a disregard of all the ties and decencies of 
the family circle. Rousseau confessed he was a liar, a thief, 
and a debauched profligate; besides his intercourse with lewd 
women, he ruined the characters of other women, and left his 
illegitimate children to be eared for by the charity of the public. 
Thomas Paine’s first wife is said to have died from ill-usage; 
his second wife left him because of neglect and unkindness; and 


EXPERIMENTAL AND COLLATERAL EVIDENCES 159 


the third was really the wife of another man on whose hospi- 
tality Paine lived while he seduced the wife. He was found . 
guilty of a breach of trust in an office given him by Congress, 
which made necessary his resignation. And the lady in whose 
house he died related that he was drunk daily. Such are fair 
examples of the morals of the greatest modern infidels. What 
a contrast are the holy lives of the greatest leaders of Chris- 
tianity ! 

4, Effects of Christianity at the Hour of Death—-The hour of 
death is an honest hour. It is proper to test and contrast the 
fruits of Christianity and infidelity in that solemn experience. 
The true Christian has victory over the grave, and sin; the sting 
of death is gone. Long ago one who had witnessed the death of 
good men said, *‘ Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my 
last end be like his.’’ What can be more sublime, more beautiful, 
more perfectly triumphant than the passing of a righteous man 
to a better and brighter world? How many, as they have stood 
on the threshold of the other world and obtained their first view 
of its glories, have turned back for a moment to tell sorrowing 
friends of the unspeakable joy and great confidence they pos- 
sessed! Thousands of dying saints have spent their last breath 
in expressions of ecstatic Joy and of blessed hope of a glorious 
future. Like the apostle Paul when the eternal reward was 
just before, many have triumphed in having kept the faith of 
Christ. But who ever heard of one who had been a true Chris- 
tian expressing regret that he had submitted to the claims of the 
gospel? Some have lamented the fact that they had not been 
better Christians; but none has ever been known, when death 
came, to be sorry he had trusted in Christ. 

But how do infidels die? Does their infidelity bring comfort 
and joy to them then? As they face the solemn change, do 
“they sing songs of joy; has one of them ever been known to 
shout in triumph at the prospect? Do they find sustaining 
power and hope in their infidel theories? Do their faces beam 
with rapturous pleasure as they face the open grave? The 
question needs no answer. In the very nature of it, infidelity 
can give no consolation in death. It is true they may in some 
instances die calmly and with apparent resignation; but such 
resignation is not due to their principles of infidelity; it is due 
rather to their recognition of the fact that death is inevitable 


160 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


and that it is useless to struggle against it. Whatever of such 
resignation there may be, or whatever lack of fear there may be 
in the death of some infidels, there is no brightness, no joy, no 
happy anticipation there. 

Many infidels have given up their infidelity when they came 
to face death. A notable example of this is Voltaire, that prince 
of scoffers. When told by his physician that he could live but 
a short time, he said, ‘‘Then I shall go to hell.’’ Though sur- 
rounded by infidels who attempted to keep him stedfast in his 
infidelity, yet he sent for a minister, signed a recantation of 
infidelity, and professed to die in the church. His death was 
horrible. One witness stated it wag ‘‘too terrible to be sustain- 
ed.’’ His physicians said, ‘‘The death of the impious man was 
terrible indeed.’’ Paine also, when near death, gave up his 
own infidel teaching. Other prominent skeptics have died simi- 
lar deaths. How hopeless is the death of a skeptic! but how 
blessed the death of the Christian! 

Christianity cures man’s spiritual ailments. Its fruit is 
good. It gives inner joy, peace, satisfaction, and pure affections 
to the Christian believer. It makeg his heart right, and by so 
doing causes his outward conduct to be holy. And as he ap- 
proaches the inevitable and solemn hour of death, he has a 
wonderful consolation that sustains him, a blessed hope of a 
life beyond this life, and a joy that bears him above all his 
troubles. As surely ag a tree is known by its fruits, as truly 
as men do not gather grapes of thorns nor figs of thistles, so 
certainly is Christianity proved by the excellent fruit it bears 
to be a good tree and of God’s own planting. 


II. Effects of Christianity on Society 

Nothing is stronger evidence of the goodness of Christianity 
than its beneficent influence on society as a whole where it has 
been given place. The force of this argument is best shown 
by contrasting the state of society in Christian lands with that 
in lands where the saving influences of the gospel have not gone. 
Some of the non-Christian lands of today which have come 
under the influence of that exalted civilization developed in 
Christian lands, owe much of their civilization to Christianity. 
But even in these lands the moral standards of society present 
a great contrast to those of Christian lands. For a fairer test, 
however, contrast those countries now blessed with the gospel 


EXPERIMENTAL AND COLLATERAL EVIDENCES 161 


with what they were before Christianity was preached there. 
To avoid the charge of unfairness, compare with our Christian 
civilization that of ancient Greece and Rome as it was when 
the gospel was first preached. There and at that time heathen- 
ism exhibited an example of its best in learning, philosophy, 
science, art, morals, and civilization. History usually deseribes 
only the glory of those ancient peoples, and is silent about their 
shame. But when we more closely examine that civilization of 
which skeptics boast, what degradation do we find! Gross 
obscenity formed a prominent part of their religious rites. 
Cruelty, murder, suicide, polygamy, infanticide, slavery, 
oppression, and various other forms of vice and immorality 
too vile to mention were not only common, but approved by 
law, religion, and public sentiment. And many of these forms 
of wickedness were practised, not only by the more degraded 
of society, but by their greatest philosophers and moralists. 

What is true of the degradation of these ancient non- 
Christian nations and of their uplift by the gospel is also true 
among modern heathen peoples where the gospel has been 
preached. The purifying power of the gospel on society has 
been demonstrated in many lands where Christian missions have 
been conducted, but no more striking examples of the reno- 
vation of society can be found than that of the degraded canni- 
bals of the South Sea Islands. There where the grossest forms 
of sin were practised, in a few years after the gospel began to 
be preached all was changed. The wave of vice and crime that 
followed the rejection of Christianity in France and Russia at 
the time of their respective revolutions is striking evidence that 
even modern civilization gets its high standards of morality 
from the gospel. Exalted moral standards and high civiliza- 
tion are now and always have been coextensive with the spread 
of the gospel and proportionate in degree to its real acceptance. 
Inasmuch as Christianity is calculated in its very nature to pro- 
duce such results, this is certain evidence that such desirable 
conditions are the fruits of Christianity. 

1. Promotion of Universal Brotherhood by the Gospel.—[n heathen 
lands stranger and enemy have been almost synonymous. But 
the principles set forth by the gospel in the Golden Rule, the 
Great Commandment, and the parable of the Good Samaritan 
have done much to produce feelings of universal brotherhood. 


162 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


The extreme cruelty of ancient heathenism is well represented 
in its gladiatorial combats, its inhuman treatment of prisoners 
of war and slaves, or its terrible persecution of Christians. 
Human life was cheap in pagan Rome. Murder and suicide 
were common. A large number of her emperors were assassinated 
and many other prominent men committed suicide. Many died 
violent deaths in the arena for the amusement of even her most 
refined society. Rome, Athens, and Corinth had no hospitals, 
nor other charitable institutions for the orphan, the aged, and the 
infirm. 

But the salutary influences of the gospel have given a sanc- 
tity to human life that has greatly lessened murder and suicide 
and set public sentiment thoroughly against them. Christianity 
has ameliorated the condition of slaves and has in modern times 
led to the complete abolition of slavery as an institution in 
Christian lands. It has outlawed dueling, mitigated the cruel- 
ties of war, and is rapidly creating such a strong feeling against 
war as threatens to abolish it completely. It has made drunken- 
ness and other forms of vice illegal. And the strong feeling of 
brotherhood and equality created in Christian lands has done 
much to destroy class-feeling and to overthrow oppressive 
government. Such results follow in proportion as evangelical 
Christianity is given place. 

2. Domestic Relations Sanctified by the Gospel.—It is well known 
that the condition of womankind is improved in proportion to 
the progress of Christianity. Heathenism has usually made 
her to rank with the beasts of burden and regarded her as the 
property of her husband, as his slave, to serve him, to be sold, 
beaten, or killed as he chooses. Polygamy has been common 
among non-Christian nations. But the gospel exalts women to 
an equal place and participation with men in all the advantages 
and benefits of society. A polygamist is regarded in Christian 
lands as a monster. Not only women, but also children have 
been lifted up by the gospel. One of the most shocking aspects 
of morals in ancient Greece and Rome was the prevalence of 
infanticide. Their people were ‘‘without natural affection.’’ 
In almost all the states of Greece and Rome, the murder of one’s 
own new-born children, or their abandonment to hunger and wild 
beasts, was allowed by law and approved by public sentiment. 
One so humane as Plutarch mentions as a merit such abandon- 


EXPERIMENTAL AND COLLATERAL EVIDENCES 163 


ment of all his children by Attalus, king of Pergamos. The 
greatest sages, philosophers, and moralists of Greece—Solon, 
Plato, and Aristotle—upheld infanticide by arguing in favor 
of it. Rome also was dyed with the blood of her murdered 
infants. In Rome, not only was infanticide common, but the law 
gave the father power to kill or sell into slavery his adult chil- 
dren at his will. Also he might legally dismiss his wife if he 
chose, and even for trivial offenses put her to death. Surely 
it is the gospel, above all other influences, that eliminates the 
oppression of the weak by the strong. 

To whatever extent true Christianity reigns in a community, 
to that extent the blessings of the highest civilization are its 
portion. There labor is ennobled, industry is encouraged, prog- 
ress is promoted, learning is advanced, science and art are devel- 
oped, pauperism is eliminated, and vice, crime, cruelty, and 
oppression are overcome. In society the fruits of Christianity 
have always proved to be good. ‘‘An evil tree can not bring 
forth good fruit.’’ Therefore Christianity is good and from 
God. 

III. Rapid Spread of Christianity in Its Beginning 

Three hundred years after the beginning of Jesus’ personal 
ministry, the whole Roman world had deserted paganism and 
become nominally Christian, and the gospel had been preached 
in the remotest countries of the then-known world. No other 
religion under such conditions and by such means has ever been 
known to spread so rapidly. The natural causes were entirely 
inadequate to produce the marvelous results accomplished by 
early Christianity. 

1. Hindrances to the Spread of Christianity——The new religion 
had to surmount several obstacles any one of which naturally 
was in itself sufficient to bar the progress of the gospel. (1) 
Christianity excluded all other religions. Not only Judaism, 
out of which it grew, but also paganism was held to be worth- 
less, and Christianity called all men to forsake them and follow 
its teachings. (2) The natural result of such exclusiveness 
was to incur the hatred and opposition of the powerful priest- 
hoods of all those religions. The Jewish priesthood were the 
chief opposers of Jesus and his apostles in Jerusalem, and it 
was those who obtained their living by the service of Diana that 
persecuted Paul in Ephesus. (3) The magistrates and other 


164 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


civil authorities were led by the priests to oppose the gospel, as 
in the crucifixion of Christ. (4) The wisdom of the Jewish 
doctors and of the heathen philosophers was arrayed against 
Christianity because it set their wisdom at naught. (5) The 
common people were opposed to it naturally because it was 
against their sins. It told them they were wrong, and stripped 
them of their self-righteousness: (6) The crucifixion of the 
leader of the movement while it was in its infancy brought 
discouragement and depression in the beginning of the work. 
With such powerful odds against it, the wonder is that the gospel 
did not perish at its very start. The fact that it was able trium- 
phantly to surmount all these is evidence that there was a super- 
natural power supporting it. 

2. Natural Inadequacy of the Means Employed— Also, the 
means employed were naturally altogether inadequate to the 
results accomplished. (1) It was generally propagated by un- 
learned men of a despised race. This fact makes the obstacles 
to the progress of the gospel appear the more formidable. The 
Jews were regarded by the ruling classes as barbarians and as 
the most despised of all such. The apostles were mostly of the 
class known as the Galileans, who were despised even by other 
Jews. The apostles were generally ignorant of the teaching of 
the great Jewish theologians and of the heathen philosophies. 
Truly God chose the weak things of the world to confound the 
mighty. They had no wealth to give them influence, no strong 
arm of civil power to sustain them, and they did not court 
human favor. (2) The message itself was an invitation to be- 
lieve in a crucified Jew not merely as a good man, nor as a 
prophet, nor as a king, but as the Son of God. This claim to 
divinity would have been against the success of Christianity 
even if Christ had been an honored philosopher of Greece; but 
being a Jew and having been subjected by a Roman governor to a 
death such as was inflicted only on the lowest criminals, it seems 
that the gospel would have been the least likely of all messages 
to find acceptance. (3) The message was repugnant to men 
naturally, because it demanded that a person utterly forsake, 
not only especially vile sins, but all sin, and much more—all 
that he had—father, mother, brother, sister, wife, children, 
houses and lands, and his own life also. The marvel is that 
such a message should ever be accepted by any one. The inade- 


EXPERIMENTAL AND COLLATERAL EVIDENCES 165 


quacy of the means to accomplish the results attained leads to 
the conclusion that, as was claimed, the invisible power and 
Spirit of God worked through these humble messengers and 
their message. 

3. The Rapidity of the Spread of Christianity Is Unparalleled. 
That the gospel made wonderful progress has already been stated. 
During the seventy years from 30 to 100 A. D., strong churches 
were raised up throughout the whole Roman world. Even far- 
off Britain, it is said, first heard the gospel during that time. 
When we compare this with the slow progress of heathen reli- 
gions and philosophies, it is astonishing. The only religion 
whose progress approaches to that of Christianity is Moham- 
medanism. But the circumstances and means employed were 
such as naturally favored its spread. The rapidity of its prog- 
ress ig the only point of similarity with Christianity. Mohammed 
was, by marriage, rich, Christ was poor. Mohammed was of a 
powerful and honorable family in Mecca, the most respected 
city of his nation; Christ was of an unknown family in an 
obseure village in despised Galilee. Mohammed began his work 
among the chief people of Mecca; Jesus chose his first twelve 
disciples from among the unlearned fishers on the shores of Gali- 
lee. Mohammed began in an age favorable to the acceptance of 
his religion, an age noted for ignorance and superstition, and 
described by historians as the ‘‘ Dark Ages’’; Christianity began 
to be propagated in the Augustan Age, the golden age of Rome, 
when the science, philosophy, and theology of the ancients was 
in the full blaze of its glory. Mohammedanism arose in Arabia 
among an ignorant and barbarous people, in one of the least en- 
lightened parts of the world; Christianity arose in the metropolis 
of a nation noted for literature and intelligence, among schools 
and synagogs. Mohammed was favored by divisions in both so- 
cial and political conditions; Jesus appeared in a time of uni- 
versal peace, when all false religions were at liberty to combine 
against him. Mohammed required no self-denial of his followers, 
but rather sanctioned the strongest passions. He enticed human 
nature. But the gospel repelled it, requiring self-denial and 
suffering. As long as Mohammed depended upon persuasion 
alone, he gained very few disciples. Only when he took the 
sword and gave men the choice between conversion and death 
did he gain many converts. Early Christianity resorted to no 


166 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


such forcible means, but depended only upon the preaching of 
the gospel. The spread of Mohammedanism was due to these ade- 
quate natural means. It is as easily explained as the spread 
of the power of Alexander, or Cesar, or Napoleon. But the 
natural agencies employed in the spread of early Christianity 
were entirely inadequate to the results accomplished. Only on 
the ground that God was with Christ and his apostles can the 
success of early Christianity be accounted for. This success was 
a miracle, and possible only with the power and favor of God. 


CHAPTER V 


INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES 


I. Fact and Nature of Inspiration of Scripture 

With the rise of the destructive higher criticism, the subject 
of the inspiration of the Scriptures has a significance such as it 
never had before. The fact of inspiration, that the Bible is 
divinely inspired in some sense or in some parts, is generally 
accepted by professed Christians. The real problem confront- 
ing us is the nature of its inspiration. 

1. Proof of Inspiration—That the Christian Bible is not an 
ordinary human book, but is in some sense from God, is readily 
shown by the sound proofs of its authenticity and credibility, 
by the miracles that attested its writers as divinely appointed 
messengers of truth, by its predictions of future events in many 
details such as is only possible to God, by its uplifting effects 
upon the individual and society, and by its perfection in moral 
standards, doctrines, simplicity and unity of parts, and perfect 
adaptation to man’s needs. The proof that the Bible is a divine 
revelation is reason for believing God would not have left its 
writing to human fallibility, but would have so directed it that 
it should accurately express his truth. Jesus testified to the in- 
spiration of the Old Testament by quoting it as ‘‘the Word of 
God’’ (Mark 7:18), and by stating ‘‘the Scriptures can not be 
broken [or err]’’ (John 10:35). ‘‘ All Scripture is given by in- 
spiration of God’’ (2 Tim. 3:16), is the statement of Paul con- 
cerning the Old Testament Scriptures. And of the same writ- 
ings Peter said, ‘‘Holy men of God spake as they were moved 
by the Holy Ghost’’ (2 Peter 1:21). The same writer also 
refers to the writings of the apostle Paul as being Scripture 
along with the ‘‘other Scriptures’’ or Old Testament (2 Pet. 
3:16). But the strongest proof of the fact of divine inspiration 
of the Scriptures is in the internal characteristics indicative of 
supernatural wisdom and knowledge. 

2. Various Theories of Inspiration.—The subject of inspiration is 
a difficult problem, and one concerning which much misunder- 
standing exists. From an early date, extreme notions of inspira- 
tion have been common with both Jews and Christians. The 
Jewish rabbis of two thousand years ago held the Mosaic writings 


in such reverence that they affirmed that God handed them down 
167 


168 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


to Moses already written. According to their tradition, when 
Moses went up into Mount Sinai he found Jehovah making the 
ornamental letters in the book of the law! They held the book of 
the law to be so divine that God himself spent three hours each 
day studying it! Also the Mohammedans assert concerning their 
Koran that it was communicated direct by the angel Gabriel 
from the original copy which is preserved in heaven, that it 
was written in perfect Arabic, and that through all succeeding 
centuries it has been preserved from all error or inaccuracies 
of copyists by a miraculous divine guardianship. 

The early Christians, as well as those in the Middle Ages, 
held a very high theory of the inspiration of the Scriptures, 
with some of the extreme views of the rabbis. The reformer 
Luther, with his bold religious thought, was inclined to judge 
the Seriptures freely, even calling the Epistle of James ‘‘an 
epistle of straw’’ because it seemed to contradict Paul’s teach- 
ing of justification by faith. But Luther’s immediate successors 
were strong supporters of a high inspiration, due to their 
Protestant idea of an infallible Book, instead of the infallible 
Church theory of Rome. 

Many theories of inspiration are held at present, varying 
from mere natural or intuitional inspiration on the one extreme 
to absolute mechanical dictation on the other. The natural- 
inspiration theory holds that the inspired writers merely pos- 
sessed a higher development of the natural insight into truth 
which is common to all men to some degree, or a mode of in- 
telligence in morals and religion similar to that possessed by 
great artists or philosophers in their branches. This theory is 
commonly held by the present-day religious liberalists and 
higher critics. It is faulty in that it would make the Bible a 
mere human book, without authority to obligate men’s consci- 
ences, and on a level with the Koran, Vedas, or other sacred 
books. Moreover, such a theory is self-contradictory in that the 
writers of one religion are inspired to write what those of 
another are inspired to pronounce false. It is, in fact, a denial 
of the divine inspiration of the Bible. 

The dictation theory, on the other hand, is highly super- 
natural, making the Bible almost entirely a divine product, 
leaving to the human writers only the place of passive instru- 
ments. It is true that the Ten Commandments were written 


INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES 169 


directly by the finger of God, and in a few instances God’s 
words spoken by an audible voice are recorded; but the bulk 
of the Bible was given by God through men. This theory of 
dictation fails to account for the manifestly human element 
in the Scriptures, the peculiarities in style that characterize 
and distinguish the productions of each writer from those of 
the others; it is inconsistent with what we know of the inter- 
working of the human and divine in our conversion, and in 
other operations; it is also improbable that God would tell 
the writers many of these facts of Bible history that they already 
knew. In fact, this dictation theory, though held by many un- 
thinking people in the past, is at present held by almost no 
thoughtful person, even among the most conservative Christians. 

3. True Nature of Inspiration—Asg already intimated, the true 
theory must allow both the human and the divine element in the 
production of the Bible. There is abundant proof of the exis- 
tence of both these elements there. Extremists who have 
grasped but one side of these proofs have given undue promin- 
ence to either the human or the divine to the exclusion of the 
other. But the great problem is to determine what is the extent 
of each of these elements and to know exactly the point where 
the human ends and the divine begins. Probably, as with the 
twofold nature of Christ, it is not possible for us to know this 
exactly; yet sufficient may be known positively to furnish us a 
practical understanding of Biblical inspiration. 

Before we attempt to define inspiration, let it be said that it 
is to be distinguished clearly from revelation. Noah and Abra- 
ham received revelations from God but no proof exists that they 
were inspired of God to write. In Matt. 9:9 is the record of the 
eall of Matthew. In recording this, Matthew did not need any 
revelation of the fact, as that was known by natural means. 
Daniel’s prediction of the time of Christ’s coming (Dan. 9:24) 
was revealed to Daniel by Gabriel in a vision, but was written 
at a subsequent time. Inspiration, therefore, does not imply 
revelation. The patriarchs Noah and Abraham had divine 
revelation, but no divine inspiration. Matthew had divine in- 
spiration, but no divine revelation as far as we know. Daniel 
had divine revelation at one time and at a subsequent time 
had divine inspiration to write what had been revealed previous- 
ly. Doubtless ordinarily the Scripture writers, especially the 


170 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


writers of the Psalms, prophetical books, and the epistles, had 
both divine revelation and divine inspiration at the time they 
wrote. But the fact that they had both of these simultaneously 
is no evidence that the one is included in the other. To regard 
inspiration as including revelation leads to confusion and vague- 
ness in thought. Revelation has to do with God’s imparting and 
man’s receiving of truths; but inspiration has to do especially 
with the publication of truths, whether those truths have been 
acquired supernaturally, as in the case of Daniel referred to, 
or naturally as with the call of Matthew. But the mode of the 
learning of these truths has nothing whatever to do with the 
extent of the divine inspiration in the publication of them. 
Matthew’s record, therefore, is not less inspired than Daniel’s. 
Failure to make this distinction has often been the foundation 
for objection to the full inspiration of the Bible. ‘‘This distinc- 
tion between revelation and inspiration is commonly made by 
systematic writers’’ (Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. I., page 
156). 

There is no proof, Scriptural or rational, that all parts of 
the Bible are not equally inspired. But there is both Scriptural 
and rational grounds for holding full inspiration, that all parts 
are equally inspired. ‘‘ All scripture is given by inspiration of 
God’’ (2 Tim. 3:16). I am aware that this rendering has been 
questioned; but such a sense in the original is supported by so 
eminent a Greek church father as Chrysostom and this read- 
ing by such modern scholars as DeWette, Bishops Moberly and 
Wordsworth, Archbishop Trench, Dean Burgon, and Doctor 
Tragelles. It is, moreover, unreasonable to think that God in 
giving a written revelation to men mixed it in with a mass of 
mere human ideas, so that no one can tell what is God’s Word 
and what is not. Such would be without authority to bind 
men’s consciences, and could be but little better than no revela- 
tion. And it is the tendency among those who deny plenary, or 
full, inspiration to weaken concerning the authority of the Bible, 
accepting particular statements as truth only as they appeal to 
their reason. It leaves the Bible without authority in itself. If 
some parts of the Bible are not inspired, then who will tell us 
which parts are inspired? Of those who try it, no two can agree. 
Reason, therefore, requires that if we are at all to regard the 


INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES 171 


Bible as God’s inspired Word, we must accept all parts of it as 
equally inspired. 

But to affirm all parts of the Scriptures are equally inspired 
is not to say all parts are equally important in the sense that 
all parts have equal religious value. Doubtless the Sermon on 
the Mount or Paul’s great charity chapter have a vastly higher 
religious significance than does the Book of Kings. The differ- 
ence between these might be as great as the relative importance 
to a man of his hair and his brain. But as the life of the man’s 
body is as truly in his hair as in his brain, so the Book of Kings 
is inspired as truly as is the Gospel of Matthew or the first epistle 
to the Corinthians. Neither does the equal inspiration of all 
parts of Scripture mean that God inspired the original utter- 
ance of the words of Satan and of wicked men therein recorded, 
such as, ‘‘Ye shall not surely die,’’ or, ‘‘Crucify him.’’ It is 
only the recording of these by the sacred penmen that is divinely 
inspired. The statement that the Scriptures are fully and 
equally inspired in all parts means the writers of the Scriptures 
were kept from error in their writing of God’s message. But 
this does not mean they were made infallible at other times or 
that they had perfect knowledge of the subjects about which 
they wrote. Paul was enabled by God to write the first epistle 
to the Corinthians without error. But he was unable to re- 
member which of the Corinthians he had baptized (1 Cor. 1:10). 
Moses wrote a true account of the creation of the universe, but 
this does not mean he had a full nor even a correct knowledge 
of the natural sciences. Only the inspiring Spirit is held to 
have had perfect knowledge and the human writers are here held 
to be inerrant only in their writing of the Scriptures, not at 
other times nor even at the time of their writing except in that 
writing. 

That the Scriptures are divinely given is shown by such texts 
as 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21. That they were written by men 
is equally clear from many texts, such as John 1:17; Rom. 1:1; 
Gal. 6:11. God adapted his truth to ordinary human intelli- 
gence by shaping it in human molds. The Scriptures are a 
result of the interworking of the human and divine, not of one 
without the other. This divine inspiration of the sacred writers 
was not as an external force, acting upon them from without; 
but was from within and through their natural faculties, intel- 


172 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


lect, and personality. From what we can gather from the Scrip- 
tural teaching and from personal experience today as to the 
manner of the working of God’s Spirit, we are safe in believing 
that these writers retained full use of every human faculty, but 
that the Holy Spirit exalted the exercise of those natural pow- » 
ers, making use of them with ‘‘all the personal peculiarities of 
the writers, together with their defects of culture and literary 
style.”’—A. H. Strong. But these defects of diction are not 
such as affect the truthfulness of the Biblical statements. This 
is known as the dynamical or verbal-inspiration theory. But 
since both of these terms have been employed to denote the me- 
chanical-dictation theory, they should be used with care. 
Careful study of the Scriptures shows that divine inspiration 
affects both the thought and the words of the Scripture. ‘‘ Yet 
it affected the words not directly and immediately by dictating 
them in the ears of the writers, but mediately, through working 
on their minds and producing there such vivid and clear ideas 
of thoughts and facts that the writers could find words fitted 
to their purpose.’’—Wm. Evans. As God, the Holy Spirit 
caused that thus God’s message should be faithfully recorded ; 
but as men, the writers wrote that message in language such as 
they would ordinarily use. Thus the Bible, though written by 
fallible men, is still an infallible guide as far as the original 
writings are concerned, because fully and divinely inspired. 


II. Objections to Inspiration of Scripture from Alleged Errors 


In these days of struggle between the destructive Bible criti- 
cism and orthodox Christianity, much is being said by religious 
liberalists about errors in the Seriptures. In a divine-human 
book like the Bible, we may expect difficulties. But with the 
many positive proofs of the divine inspiration of the Bible before 
us, we need not doubt its authorship merely because of these 
difficulties, which in many cases can be explained, and might be 
in every case if we had full knowledge of all the facts. 

But the errors alleged of the Bible are not usually concern- 
ing its moral and religious teaching, which is the primary pur- 
pose of it, but of its secular teaching—its references to history 
and science—and in quotations. If the critics could actually 
prove that the original manuscripts of the Bible contain errors, 
it would not disprove divine inspiration, but would merely re- 


INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES 173 


quire many believers in inspiration to allow a larger place for 
the human element. However, many of the best Christian schol- 
ars, including Charles Hodge, a theologian of the highest order, 
have not found proof of the existence of real errors. Let us not 
be stampeded by the claims of errors and therefore decide such 
errors exist until we at least examine the alleged errors to see 
if there are any reasons for thus regarding them. The following 
are some of the alleged errors most commonly cited by the lead- 
ing scholars of the liberal school. If it can be shown that these 
are not necessarily mistakes, but can as well be understood other- 
wise, then the Bible has not been convicted of error. 

1. Historical Errors—Though the Bible is not given for the 
purpose of recording ancient history, yet, inasmuch as truth has 
been historically revealed, it consists largely of history. Is it 
historically correct? In some cases it has been supposed to be 
incorrect; but discoveries have proved it to be correct and ac- 
cepted historians to be wrong. The Bible record of a Hittite 
empire great enough to war with Egypt was affirmed by the ordi- 
nary historians to be incorrect, but later it was proved by inscrip- 
tions to be a true record. May we not suppose many other so- 
ealled errors of history in the Bible could be explained if we 
knew all the facts? 

There may be some real errors due to mistakes of copyists, 
but not to any fault in the original manuscripts. Other appar- 
ent errors may be due to the use of round numbers rather than 
exact numbers, the general impression being considered more 
important than historical exactness, just ag we say ten thousand 
men fell in a certain battle when but nine thousand and eight 
hundred died. The use of round numbers is intentional and is 
improperly called error. Varying accounts of the same events 
are also cited as error in history. These may often be accounted 
for in a perfectly satisfactory manner as resulting from the in- 
completeness of the records rather than as being error or con- 
tradiction. Each of the four evangelists gives the inscription 
on Jesus’ cross, but no two of them give it alike. Yet none of 
them contradict any of the others. Each of them gives what he 
doubtless regarded as the essential part, and probably the sum 
of the four accounts is the total inscription. Matthew mentions 
two Gadarene demoniacs, but Mark mentions only one. Now if 
Mark had stated there was only one, then he would have contra- 


174 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


dicted Matthew; but as it is, he does not contradict him, but 
merely describes the principal demoniac and leaves the account 
incomplete as regards the second. If such is error, then all 
’ gingle-volume general histories must be found to be full of errors 
when compared with an exhaustive history of the world. 

2. Scientific Errors.—The Bible is concerned with science only 
as reference to it is of value in stating religious truth. And it 
may be confidently asserted that no discovery of science has 
shown one properly interpreted text of Scripture to be untrue. 
Doubtless the human writers did not have the advanced scientific 
knowledge of the present day; but is it not sufficient that the in- 
spiring Spirit should have had this and so have guided them that 
their necessary references to scientific matters should be in such 
form that they should be understood by men of their own as well 
as of subsequent ages and yet not contradict scientific facts still 
to be learned by men? 

The Seriptural reference to the ‘‘four corners of the earth’’ 
was doubtless understood by the ancients as referring to a flat 
earth; but the idea intended is merely the four points of the com- 
pass, and the expression was a popular one used only to express 
the idea of entirety, in language that unscientific men of all ages 
could understand. The assumption was that honest men with 
correct scientific knowledge would readily understand that it was 
necessary that the inspiring Spirit should thus state it if his 
religious message was to be accepted. This also explains the 
statement that the sun stood still. Such a statement by God’s 
Spirit is no more incorrect than the reference to sunrise and sun- 
set now used even by learned men of science. It is truth in pop- 
ular form. So also the Bible record of creation may be fairly 
interpreted in harmony with all the proved facts of geology, 
astronomy, and other sciences, and it even need not necessarily 
be understood as contradicting such unproved hypotheses as the 
nebular theory. Much objection has been raised to the low an- 
tiquity for man that is gathered from the Bible genealogies. 
But this difficulty is more apparent than real. First, the Bible 
does not state what is the age of man; nor does it say there are 
no missing links in its genealogies since Adam, but rather implies 
that there may be. The Bible record may allow ten thousand 
years for man on earth. And some very reliable scientists claim 
no greater antiquity for man. But the mere fact that some scien- 


INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES 175 


tists claim an age for man on earth all the way from ten thousand 
years to five million years is reason for believing they do not 
have any very exact data from which to judge the correctness 
of the Bible. f 

3. Moral Errors.—Rash critics of the Bible sometimes make 
the statement that it contains so much of an immoral nature that 
it is unworthy of being read by children or pure-minded adults. 
They err in overlooking the fact that the Bible holds up the 
highest standard of morals known. The description of immoral 
conduct is often given that such conduct may be condemned, as 
in the case of David’s sin with Bathsheba. Other immoral acts 
such as Jael’s killing of the sleeping Sisera are merely recorded 
for another purpose without approving or disapproving them as 
to their moral quality. Still other conduct must be regarded as 
that of good men and relatively right according to their standard 
of morals at a time when the high moral standards of the New 
Testament were not yet given, as Abraham’s having a second 
wife, or concubine, Hagar, yet being perfect according to the 
standard of morals in his day. Other events such as the exter- 
minations by the Israelites at God’s command are just on the 
ground of God’s righteous sovereignty, as he is the judge of ali 
the earth and properly punishes those who deserve it even 
through another nation of that age. Again, the mistake is made 
of judging people of ancient times and in Oriental countries by 
our modern Western standards of modesty and propriety. Peo- 
ple of the highest purity of mind and moral standard in Hastern 
lands now, as in the past, speak freely in mixed company of mat- 
ters considered by us improper for such mention. Here the 
claim of error in morality in the Bible is entirely unwarranted. 

But probably the most common claim of error is concerning 
the imprecatory Psalms. We refer to an example of these which 
Dr. Sheldon says are not inspired, but the expression of ‘‘hot 
human passion.’’ ‘‘Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth’’ 
(Psa. 58:6). But to begin, we may allow in most of the impreca- 
tory Psalms, as authorities tell us, that the tense in the Hebrew 
is future and not imperative. Then they are predictions and 
not imprecations—an announcement of God’s just judgments 
and not a prayer for them. Again, the error is made by the 
eritic of taking symbol for literal fact. The breaking-out of the 
great teeth of the young lions described in the remainder of the 


176 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


verse, is a symbol of making the wicked harmless. That these so- 
called imprecatory Psalms are divinely inspired and are to be 
interpreted as predictions is proved by Peter’s interpretation 
(Acts 1:20) of Psa, 69: 18-25. This scripture he interprets as 
being a prediction of Judas Iscariot, expressly stating that it 
was spoken by the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David (Acts 1: 
16). Who has the right to say it is a mere human utterance, 
or the expression of human passion, in the face of this positive 
statement of Scripture? 

4, Contradictions.—‘‘The Bible is full of contradictions’’ is a 
very common statement, usually made by men who are much bet- 
ter acquainted with the writings of the skeptic or higher critic 
than with the Bible itself. But as one better-informed critic has 
allowed, if we knew all the facts we might find that no real con- 
tradiction exists. So learned a writer as H. C. Sheldon has sup- 
posed he finds contradictions by comparing Deut. 10:1-5 with 
Exod. 37:1-9. In the first reference, Moses said he made the ark 
of the covenant, and in the second that Bezaleel made it. But 
may not Moses have meant that Bezaleel made it under his di- 
rection, just as the Panama Canal was made by Colonel Goethals, 
merely as he directed others in the construction of that great 
modern feat of engineering? Moses was the designer and super- 
intendent, and Bezaleel the carpenter. 

But why prolong the discussion? The foregoing considera- 
tions sufficiently show that many alleged errors are not such and 
that many others not mentioned may be explained. While we 
hold that even if the Bible were convicted of error in secular 
matters the inspiration of its religious message would not neces- 
sarily be affected, yet inasmuch as many able scholars have 
failed to find the proof of the existence of such error, why hasten 
to decide it exists? Until its existence is proved, why not sup- 
pose the divine element in the inspiration of the Scriptures has 
excluded error in the statement of facts both secular and relig- 
ious ? 


Part Ill 


NATURE AND WORKS OF GOD, OR THEOLOGY 
PROPER 


Lave 


“4 


Poe) a, 
nthe 


its 





Part IIl 


NATURE AND WORKS OF GOD, OR THEOLOGY 
PROPER 


CHAPTER I 
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 


Having shown that God exists and that he has given a revela- 
tion of religious truth in the Scriptures, the next question for 
consideration both in importance and in logical order is, What 
is God? Our idea of the nature and operations of God is of fun- 
damental importance. It determines what is the nature of our 
religion and theology. This is the point of divergence between 
polytheism, pantheism, and Christianity, between Unitarianism 
and Trinitarianism, and even in a degree between Calvanism and 
Arminianism, This study about the nature of God is the study 
of theology in the more restricted and exact sense of the term. 


I. Possibility of Knowledge of God 


1. God as an Object of Knowledge.—It is not possible to know 
that God is, without some knowledge as to what God is. In its 
very nature the first idea necessarily includes the second in a 
measure. The common convictions of mankind and the plain 
statements of the Scriptures give no uncertain testimony con- 
cerning God as an object of knowledge. It was predicted by the 
prophet that ‘‘the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the 
Lord’’ (Isa. 11:9). Also it was predicted ‘‘ All shall know me’’ 
(Heb. 8:11). Even of the heathen it is said, they knew God, but 
did not like to retain that knowledge (Rom. 1:28). 

There would be no need of any argument to show that God 
is knowable except for the sophistry of certain modern philoso- 
phers who attempt by their unsound reasoning to disprove a 
truth more certain than any of their premises. The argument 
as set forth at great length by Hamilton, Spencer, and Mill is in 
brief essentially as follows: The absolute is necessarily unknow- 
able because knowledge requires a knower and a known, or rela- 
tion, and the relative is opposed to the absolute. Also it allows 


God is infinite, but affirms he is therefore unknowable because 
179 


180 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


knowledge implies limitation and, it is said, limitation is contra- 
dictory to infinity. But the argument when reduced to simple 
language is nothing more than an affirmation that nothing can 
be known at all that can not be known exhaustively and perfectly. 
When the argument is thus stated, it is seen at once to be false. 
Most of the objects of which we have knowledge are knowable 
to us only in part. Self-knowledge is but partial. We can not 
know the mystery of our physical life, yet we know we have liv- 
ing bodies. We do not know what is thought, nor how the mind 
acts on the body, yet we know we have minds and we know we 
think. Even if we can not conceive exhaustively of the weight 
of the earth, yet we know certainly the earth is and somewhat 
of its properties and form. God is not only an object of faith, 
but also of knowledge. 

2. Extent of Men’s Knowledge of God.—An error opposite to 
the foregoing is that held by certain ancient as well as some 
modern philosophers, that God can be as fully known as any other 
object of knowledge. But these philosophers held pantheistic 
views of God and therefore self-knowledge with them is the 
knowledge of God. 

Doubtless infinity in God excludes full knowledge of him by 
finite beings. Our knowledge of God can be only partial. He 
ean not be conceived of in the sense of our forming a mental 
picture of him, but he is conceivable in the sense that he is think- 
able. Also to affirm that God can be known by us is not to say 
that he can be comprehended in the sense that our understanding 
of him is perfect. If God could be fully known by our finite 
minds, he would be no god. We know that God has unlimited 
power to act, but how he does it we can not know. We know he 
knows all things, but concerning his mode of knowing we do not 
understand. We know his love is boundless, but here also our 
knowledge is limited. As we know space but not in its infinite 
extent, as we know duration though not eternity, so we know 
God really but not exhaustively. 

3. How God May Be Known.—The mode by which we form 
an idea of God is the same as that we employ in forming our 
ideas concerning the facts of consciousness in our fellow men, 
which is by comparison with ourselves. We are the children 
of God. Therefore, in certain respects, we are like him and he 
is like us. It is proper that we should ascribe to him those 


THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 181 


qualities of our own natures in an unlimited degree. Through- 
out his works in nature we see proofs that God has knowledge, 
emotion, volition. We know what these are in ourselves as ra- 
tional beings and we rightly decide they are the same in God. 
To the idea of these qualities in ourselves we add the idea of 
infinity and thus have our idea of God. 

Doubtless some would make the charge here that such a con- 
ception of God is anthropomorphic. In reply, first, is it not 
better to liken God to the highest we know, the human spirit, 
than to liken him to one of the lowest things we know, mere 
physical force, as is usually done by those who are shyest about 
anthropomorphism? This likening of God to the most exalted 
part of human nature, not to the physical part, we readily admit 
is anthropomorphism in the proper sense of the term, and we see 
no valid ground for objection either to such a mode of thinking 
of God or to the use of this term to describe such a conception, 
as do those who profess so great a horror for anthropomorphism. 
Men of all religions have always thought of God in this way. 
Also it is the principle which Paul assumed in addressing the 
Athenians. ‘‘Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, 
we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or 
silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device’’ (Acts 17: 29). 

But we not only know God by our own natures, which are in 
his image, but we also know him through the revelation of him- 
self in the Scriptures. With the proof of the divine authority 
of the Scriptures already given, we may now properly go to them 
as authority. And not only do we have the many statements of 
the Bible as to the nature of God, but we have there a descrip- 
tion of Christ, who was God manifested in human form. This 
manifestation of God in the person of his Son is the surest of 
all methods of knowing God. It was truly said by Jesus, ‘‘He 
that hath seen me hath seen the Father.’’ Therefore God is not 
only an object of faith, but also of knowledge. 


II. Nature and Classification of God’s Attributes 


God is known to us by his attributes, and any true definition 
of him must be in terms of his attributes. Doubtless an exhaus- 
tive definition of the infinite God is not possible to any finite 
creature. Yet it is possible for us to state what are those char- 
acteristics which differentiate him from all other beings. 


182 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Many definitions of God have been constructed, varying in 
form according to the purpose for which they were formulated, 
or according as particular aspects of his nature are made prom- 
inent. W. N. Clarke has given a definition of God that is very 
enlightening and excellent for the purpose intended, as follows: 
‘‘God is the personal Spirit, perfectly good, who in holy love 
creates, sustains, and orders all’’ (Outlines of Christian Theol- 
ogy, p. 66). This definition has a practical end in view. It 
describes the nature of God’s essence, exalts him above all others, 
and names the high motive that prompts all his works. It is 
simple, yet very comprehensive. “But though it is practical, yet 
it fails to tell us certain things about God concerning which the 
mind seeks to know and which may be known. The definition 
given by the ‘‘ Westminster Catechism,’’ and which Dr. Hodge 
considers ‘‘propably the best definition of God ever penned by 
man,’’ is as follows: ‘‘God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and un- 
changeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, good- 
ness, and truth.’’ This definition is true and probably as com- 
plete as can be attained in a brief statement. It is to a great 
extent a mere naming of the divine attributes. 

1. Relation of God’s Attributes to His Essence——The attributes 
of God are those characteristics which make him what he is, and 
which are essential to the idea of God and the ground for his 
various manifestations. Quality, property, and faculty are terms 
practically synonymous with attribute. However, in common 
usage they are not applied the same. Usually the qualities or 
characteristics of matter are called properties, those of mind 
faculties, and those of God attributes. We know matter by its 
properties, mind by its faculties, and God is known by his attri- 
butes. In no other way can matter, mind, or God be known, and 
nothing other than manifestations of these characteristics can 
be known of matter, mind, or God. Therefore to know God’s 
attributes is to know God himself. 

But it is improper to confound the divine attributes with the 
divine essence and with one another in such a sense that they 
have no distinct objective existence, but are mere human concep- 
tions of God with no other basis than the imperfection of the 
finite mind. The attributes of God inhere in the divine essence. 
They are not mere manifestations existing apart from any es- 
sence, They are attributes or characteristics of God as weight or 


a 


THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 183 


extension are qualities of a material object. Attributes are incon- 
ceivable apart from that essence which is their basis. They be- 
long to the essence of God as such, and are as inseparable from 
it as weight and temperature are from a material thing. They 
are to be distinguished from those relations of God not essential 
to his nature. Creation is not a divine attribute because God 
would still have been God if he had never created anything. The 
divine essence is manifested only through the attributes. Except 
for these God would be unknowable. Therefore to know God 
we must know his attributes. 

2. Classification of Attributes—Much learned labor has been 
expended in efforts to make scientific classifications of the divine 
attributes. Many methods of classification have been devised, 
but the great diversity of these methods is evidence that none of 
them has enough in its favor to give it general recognition. It is 
doubtful whether an exact scientific classification could add much 
to the understanding of the attributes. Order is the only pur- 
pose of classification, and the purpose of order is clearness. The 
classification here followed may lack in elaborate scientific 
arrangement sometimes sought, but it has the advantage of sim- 
plicity and is often followed. All the attributes are grouped in 
two classes in agreement with the two aspects of the divine na- 
ture—the metaphysical and the moral. The metaphysical are 
sometimes inaptly called natural attributes. At least seven di- 
vine characteristics belong to this class: (1) Unity, (2) spiritual- 
ity, (3) immutability, (4) eternity, (5) omnipotence, (6) omni- 
presence, (7) omniscience. The moral or ethical attributes are 
not fewer than five: (1) holiness, (2) justice, (3) love, (4) 
mercy, (5) truth. 

III. Metaphysical or Non-Ethical Attributes 

1. Unity of God.—The term ‘‘unity’’ as here used is liable to 
be misunderstood or at least there is a danger of our grasping 
only a part of its significance, but probably for lack of a better 
term a definition of the one used is desirable. Unity is predicated 
of God in two senses. First, he is one to the exclusion of all 
others. Unity signifies his absolute solitariness in the rank of 
independent and original being. He is not one of a class, as is a 
man. He has no companion, as in dualism or polytheism. Sec- 
ond, he is not an aggregate or compound of separable units, as in 
Greek myths, but is simple being. Such oneness, however, is not 


184 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


to be understood as excluding such interior distinctions as the 
various attributes, nor the threefold personality in that one 
divine indivisible essence. 

The Scriptures clearly teach this unity. ‘‘The Lord he is 
God; there is none else beside him’’ (Deut. 4:35). ‘‘The Lord 
our God is one Lord’’ (Deut. 6:4). ‘‘I am the first, and I am 
the last; and beside me there is no God”’ (Isa. 44:6). ‘‘I am the 
Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me’’ (Isa. 
45:5). ‘‘There is one God’’ (1 Tim, 2:5). ‘‘There is none other 
God but one’’ (1 Cor. 8:4). These statements were uttered in 
opposition to the prevalent polytheism of the time when spoken 
and doubtless support the two aspects of divine unity aforemen- 
tioned. Nature also affords abundant proof of divine unity. 
Amidst all the endless diversity of nature there is also a wonder- 
ful harmony. As science advances in the discovery of the laws 
of nature the harmony of nature is the more confirmed. In the 
cosmological argument for the divine existence it was shown that 
nature requires a first cause. As certainly as it points to the 
existence of a cause, it indicates that that cause is one. 

The Bible affirms the unity of God. Also there is no logical 
need for allowing more than one God, and without a reason for 
supposing a plurality of gods the law of parcimony in logic ex- 
eludes such a econelusion. Polytheism is not a product of reason, 
but as the apostle Paul implies in the first chapter of his Epistle 
to the Romans, the result of a depravity so degraded that the 
ereature is worshiped instead of the creator. 

2. Spirituality of God—By this expression is meant that God 
is a spirit, or that he is of spiritual substance. The theistic 
conception of God implies spirituality. Even idolaters usually 
do not think of their image as their God, but rather as a sym- 
bol or abode of a spirit which they worship. In some of their 
images is an opening to a cavity into which the spirit is sup- 
posed to enter. 

When we affirm that God is a spirit we mean first, nega- 
tively, that he is not a material substance. He has no body, 
and none of the properties of matter can be properly predi- 
cated of him. Consequently he is not like a material being, with 
bulk, form, parts, or extension, but is invisible and intangible. 
Those Seripture statements which seem to represent him as 
having bodily parts, as eyes, ears, and hands, are anthropomor- 


THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 185 


phic and are mere adaptations in language to represent knowl- 
edge attained or actions executed such as man accomplishes by 
the use of such organs. God appeared to Abraham and to Jacob 
in the form of a man, to Moses in the form of fire in a bush, to 
Israel as a pillar of cloud or fire, and as a bright light at other 
times. These manifestations which are technically known as 
theophanies are, however, not indicative of the essential nature 
of God, but are only forms assumed for the occasions. 

Secondly, in attributing spirituality to God we mean posi- 
tively that he possesses all those exalted qualities of a spirit 
which constitute personality. To ascribe spirituality to God is 
to exclude the idea of pantheism. To say that God is a spirit 
we imply: (1) that he is not a mere idea, but a real substance, 
though not a material one; (2) that he is an individual sub- 
stance and not a mere principle or power; (3) that he has in- 
tellect, sensibility, and will, and therefore is a person; (4) that 
he possesses self-consciousness; and (5) that because he is a 
rational, voluntary being, he is also a moral being. We know 
what the qualities of spirit must be in God by what they are in 
our own spirits. And we know by our own consciousness that 
these are essential qualities of our own spirits. 

The proof that God is a spirit is very explicit in the Scerip- 
tures. ‘‘God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must 
worship him in spirit and in truth’’ (John 4:24). He is ‘‘the 
Father of spirits’’ (Heb. 12:9). ‘‘The God of the spirits of all 
flesh’’ (Num. 16:22). ‘‘Now the Lord is that spirit’’ (2 Cor. 
3:17). Rational evidence that God is a spirit is also not wanting. 
In all the theistic arguments we found proofs of free-will and 
personality which imply spirituality. Also spirituality in God 
necessarily results from ascribing to him infinite and absolute 
perfections. Matter is necessarily inferior to spirit because of 
those limitations and imperfections that belong to it. 

When we affirm that God is a spirit we say that which we do 
not fully comprehend. Neither do we know what is matter. 
But as we can know somewhat of the nature of matter by its 
properties, so we know somewhat of spirit by its phenomena 
and by our own consciousness. And by our knowledge of what 
is the nature of the human spirit we arrive at a knowledge of 
what is the nature of the divine spirit. It is not important 
that we know what is the nature of the essence of spirit, but it 


186 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


is important that we know what are the powers of spirits. This 
we know. 

3. Immutability of God.—By this we mean God never changes 
as to his nature and attributes. He is necessarily unchange- 
able because he is perfect. Any changes must be for better 
or for worse. But a being who is perfect can not become better, 
and it is equally inconsistent to perfection to change to worse. 
Nothing could exist in a perfect being to cause him to change 
to worse and no cause outside of him could so effect him. God’s 
perfections in an indefinite degree exclude the idea of any such 
thing as growth or evolution. That modern theological and 
philosophical theory that God grows ig based upon the unscrip- 
tural and unreasonable idea that God is now imperfect and 
finite. But immutability in God should not be confused with 
immobility, nor interpreted in such a way as to antagonize the 
doctrine of divine personality. God is unchangeable in his 
essential nature, but he is capable of action. God is forever 
just. He rewards goodness, but if one whom he hag been re- 
warding for goodness should cease to be good and should become 
evil the very immutable justice of God would require him to 
change his course of dealings with that person. Those represen- 
tations in the Scriptures of God’s ‘‘repenting’’ of that which 
he had done should be understood as anthropomorphisms. They 
merely describe a change in his course of action, in conformity 
with his unchangeable attributes, as a result of a change in the 
moral character of those persons concerned. But for the 
righteous his goodness is always the same. 

The Bible clearly teaches that God is unchangeable. ‘‘I am 
the Lord, I change not’’ (Mal. 3:6). ‘‘Every good gift and 
every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the 
Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow 
of turning’ (Jas.1:17). He is ‘‘the same yesterday, and today, 
and forever’’ (Heb. 13:8). The immutability of God is a truth 
of reason. Because he is infinite in all perfection nothing can be 
added to him nor taken away from him. 

4, Eternity of God.—Eternity is infinite duration. Time is 
limited duration. By the eternity of God is meant that his exis- 
tence is without beginning and without end. But more than 
mere infinite duration is involved in the eternity of God. It is 
his nature to exist, and necessary existence is involved in the 


THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 187 


very idea of his being God. The supposition that at some time in 
infinite duration God did not exist is self-contradictory. Our 
finite minds utterly fail to grasp the full significance of the eter- 
nity of God’s being, but reason will not admit of its denial. To 
reject it is to accept the unthinkable theory that all things 
originated out of nothing, or that all that is, including God him- 
self, will be utterly annihilated. 

Because God is immutable and possesses perfect knowledge 
of the past, present, and future, then experience of time must 
be foreign to him. Subjectively God is timeless. But the divine 
eternity in connection with God’s infinite knowledge must be 
considered in another aspect. Doubtless in relation to the tem- 
poral order in the world which he has created, God knows things 
in succession. Here his knowledge is not determined by what he 
is in himself, but by his relation to the world. Infinite knowl- 
edge requires that his knowledge of events be not only immediate 
and complete, but also that he know succession as men know it. 
Without such knowledge a gradual revelation of truth in logical 
order would have been impossible. 

The eternity of God is often affirmed in the Bible. The very 
name ‘‘Jehovah’’ which God gave to himself and by which he is 
commonly called means ‘‘I am’’ or the eternal living one. “‘I 
am hath sent me unto you’’ (Exod. 3:14). ‘‘Before the moun- 
tains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth 
and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art 
God’’ (Psa. 90:2) He is ‘‘the high and lofty One that inhabit- 
eth eternity’’ (Isa. 57:15). He is ‘‘the King eternal’’ (1 Tim. 
1:17). In the cosmological argument for the existence of God 
is rational proof that God is eternal. Whatever dependent 
causes are to be found in nature, the mind requires an independ- 
ent first cause and that cause must be personal as a free cause 
and eternal as an uncaused cause, else there was an uncaused 
beginning. But neither an uncaused beginning nor an infinite 
series of dependent causes are thinkable or possible. 

5. Omnipotence of God.—By omnipotence is meant the al- 
mightiness or unlimited power of God, or that God has power to 
do all things which are objects of power. We get our idea of 
power from our own consciousness. We are conscious of origin- 
ating effects by our own wills. There is that in ourselves which 
causes other things to be, and we call it power. In us power is 


188 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


confined to narrow limits. Most of the effects we produce are 
by the use of means. We can not will a book into existence, 
but can cause one to exist by the use of means. This limited 
causal efficiency in ourselves as we know it in consciousness fur- 
nishes us an idea of the nature of that infinite causal efficiency 
in God. When from our idea of power as it exists in us all the 
limitations are removed, we have an idea of that unlimited power 
of God. We must employ means to effect results, but God wills 
and it is done. We may lack the means to do all that we will, 
but God, whose efficiency is independent of means, has no such 
limitations. : 

But it is erroneous to assume that God can do all things. 
Some things are not objects of power nor doable in their nature. 
The Bible states that God can not lie. God’s power is not irre- 
sponsible or separate from his other attributes, but is limited 
by the perfections of his character. His nature is self-consist- 
ent. He can not do that which is contradictory. He ean not 
cause a thing both to be and not to be at the same time. He can 
not make an old man in a minute, because such an idea is contra- 
dictory. He can not do the irrational. He can not make a world 
where three plus three will equal seven, or where the angles of a 
triangle will not be equal to two right angles. Neither can he 
do that which is morally wrong, because of the holiness of his 
own character. It is physically and naturally possible that God 
should do evil, but morally impossible, because he will not. God 
ean not lie, neither can he cause it to be well with the wicked 
while they continue in wickedness. 

Another important fact concerning omnipotence is that it 
does not imply that God exercises all his power. He has power 
to control the exercise of his power according to his holy char- 
acter and wise purposes. If it is not so he is the slave of his 
own power and not omnipotent. He can do all he wills to do, but 
will not do all he can do. 

The Bible says, ‘‘I am the Almighty God’’ (Gen. 17:1). 
‘‘There is nothing too hard for thee’’ (Jer. 32:17). ‘‘ With God 
all things are possible’’ (Matt. 19: 26). ‘‘The Lord God omnipo- 
tent reigneth’’ (Rev. 19:6). As first cause or creator of all 
things his power must exceed every other power. Probably 
logical proof can not be given that God is more than most 
powerful, but rational evidence that his power is greater than 


THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 189 


all other powers combined, is practically equivalent to evidence 
that he is all powerful. The fact that he is necessarily infinite 
in other attributes is ground for affirming also omnipotence of 
him. 

6. Omnipresence of God.—By this is meant that in some sense 
God is everywhere and fills infinite space with his presence. We 
may be sure of the fact of his omnipresence, but the sense in 
which it is true is a subject very difficult for thought. Such 
infinity of God in relation to space is doubtless as difficult for 
comprehension by finite minds as is any other infinite idea. Cer- 
tainly we are not to regard God as omnipresent in the sense of 
an infinite multiplication of his spirit because his spirit is neces- 
sarily one and individual as was shown under the unity of God. 
Neither is it proper to suppose it is by an extension of his parts 
or by diffusion of his essence throughout infinite space ag the air 
is diffused over the surface of the earth. Since God is a spirit 
it can not be correctly said that a part of God is here and an- 
other part is there. Negatively this much can be said with cer- 
tainty. 

Both the Seriptures and reason furnish ground for believing 
God is everywhere present in his range of knowledge and action. 
There is no doubt that he is omnipresent in his ability to know 
and to do. But the most difficult question in relation to the sub- 
ject is, Is he omnipresent in the sense that his essence is every- 
where in its entirety always? Such a view has been not uncom- 
monly held, and this essential omnipresence has been regarded as 
action. But it is not clear that such a sense of omnipresence is 
necessary to universal knowledge and action, and to many careful 
thinkers there seems to be no conclusive proof of an omnipresence 
of God’s essence. Whether God is essentially omnipresent or not, 
it is certain that he is potentially so. On this point Dr. Sheldon 
has said, ‘‘Being is defined by the modes and the measure of 
its activity. As was observed in another connection, greatness 
depends, not on space filling bulk, but on range of action pos- 
sible or actual. Now God is the one agent whose range of action 
is unlimited. This is the meaning of his omnipresence. He is 
present to all things as acting immediately upon all things. What 
makes distance to us is the limitation of our power of immediate 
action. For God no such limitation exists. One thing there- 
fore is Just as near to him as another, or, to say the same thing in 


190 . CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


different terms, he is equally present to all things’’ (System of 
Christian Doctrine, pp. 170, 171). 

That sublime utterance of the Psalmist about God’s omni- 
presence well represents the Scripture teaching on the subject. 
‘Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from 
thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I 
make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings 
of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 
even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold 
me’’ (Psa. 189: 7-10). ‘‘Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, 
and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places 
that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and 
earth? saith the Lord’’ (Jer. 23: 23,24). ‘‘For in him we live, 
and move, and have our being’’ (Acts 17:28). Such are the 
clear statements of Scripture concerning God’s omnipresence. 
Reason also teaches that the God who creates, sustains, and orders 
all must necessarily be everywhere present. Unless he is thus 
ubiquitous he ean not be God in the true sense. 

7. Omniscience of God.—With the proof that God is eternal 
and omnipresent, that he inhabits eternity and fills immensity, 
it logically follows that he is in possession of all knowledge. The 
fact of omniscience is inseparable from the omnipresence and 
eternity of God. Since his presence extends to all duration and 
all space, he must have immediate and complete knowledge. This 
is omniscience. Omniscience includes a perfect knowledge of all 
existences or events in the past, present, or future—actual and 
possible. That the range of God’s knowledge includes foreknowl- 
edge, or prescience, is evident, not only from the foregoing rea- 
soning concerning his eternity and ubiquity, but also (1) from 
his knowledge of himself which is the source and cause of all 
other existences and events, (2) from the fact of his prediction 
in the Bible of future events, and (3) from the general truth of 
his infinity. 

Omniscience is incomprehensible to finite minds as are all 
other infinite ideas. Especially is the idea of any real prescience 
beyond the grasp of men’s minds, since they have no experience 
of such a thing. But the chief difficulty in prescience is met with 
in the attempt to harmonize divine foreknowledge of men’s acts 
with the doctrine of their free-will and moral responsibility. 
It is reasoned that if the future actions of men are foreknown 


THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 191 


they must necessarily be predetermined, or made certain, and if 
they are predetermined they are no longer free acts, and if not 
free acts men are not morally responsible. But it is further 
argued that freedom and moral responsibility are among the 
most certain facts of consciousness and therefore must be true. 
It is consequently assumed that certain knowledge of future con- 
tingencies is not possible. But such a conclusion is contradictory 
to the fact that the Bible contains many predictions of future 
events in which the human element and men’s free-wills are as 
surely concerned as in any event. Since these facts of conscious- 
ness and the truth of prophecy are both actual and certain, then 
they are not contradictory nor exclusive of each other as has been 
sometimes reasoned. Such reasoning is unsound, because it fails 
to make an important distinction between certainty and neces- 
sity. Knowledge is not causation, and foreknowledge is not pre- 
determination. To affirm an event will be is not to affirm it 
must be. Both affirmations denote the certainty of the event, 
but will be implies that the opposite is possible while must be 
states that the opposite is not possible. God’s foreknowledge of 
an event is due to the certainty of that event, but the event does 
not come to pass because God foreknows it. God foreknew the 
awful carnage of the World War and the fact that Christ would 
be crucified, but who will dare to say that his prescience caused 
either? God may know that an event will be and yet know that 
it may not, be or need not be. 

Another difficulty in the doctrine of divine prescience is his 
offers of grace and use of means for the salvation of particular 
men when he foreknows they will always reject his offered mercy. 
It is apparently true on the ground of God’s prescience that God 
does seek to save those he knows will not be saved. There would 
be no reason for his dealing differently toward them if he knew 
they would be saved. If such procedure excludes divine pre- 
science then prescience disqualifies God as moral ruler, for the 
only alternative course of dealing with the wicked would be for 
God merely to allot destinies to men on the ground of what he 
foresees they would choose if placed on probation. Such a 
course would exclude moral government. But moral government 
is a fact and necessary to men’s highest good, and the moral 
ruler instead of being disqualified by prescience would be unqual- 
ified without it. No one could properly be trusted with the des- 


192 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


tinies of all men unless he absolutely knew the future. Pre- 
science is not inconsistent with the use of means by God for our 
salvation exactly as if he did not foreknow our final choice and 
destiny. 

A similar objection to divine foreknowledge is that it is 
inconsistent with the goodness of God for him to create human 
souls that he foreknows will do wickedly and finally be lost. 
But the denial of prescience to God would not obviate the diffi- 
culty. Even if God’s knowledge were as limited as ours, he 
would know that to create a race of beings with free-will and 
moral responsibility would make possible their final penal doom. 
Therefore the objection concerns not God’s prescience, but his 
goodness. It is the problem of theodicy, one of the most difficult 
in theology. Probably this is one of the ways of the Lord that 
are ‘‘past finding out.’’ 

As we have defined omniscience it includes prescience, not 
only of all events actual, but also possible; not only of what 
wil be, but what can be. There are difficulties in this view. It 
is to affirm that God knows an inconceivable amount more as 
possible than as actual. It means that God knows what would 
have been the future history of the world if the World War 
or any other decisive war had resulted oppositely, what different 
conditions would have been if our foreparents in Eden had not 
yielded to temptation or if the unnumbered free choices of men 
had been different, or what free wills would have done under 
different conditions, or what free wills that never existed would 
have done if they had been created. The difficulty here ig prin- 
cipally the difficulty of infinity which is beyond our comprehen- 
sion. But a greater difficulty confronts us if we disallow to 
God a foreknowledge of the possible as well as of the actual. 
It would be to deny to him practical omniscience. He could 
know his universe only as it is and could not understand its pos- 
sibilities. He could not intelligently choose its course, because 
he would know only the consequences of but the one course. In 
fact, it would exclude his intelligent direction of the universe 
and the theory of existence attending such a belief would not 
be essentially different from fatalism. 

The divine omniscience is clearly stated in the Seriptures. 
‘The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and 
the good’’ (Prov. 15:3). ‘‘Great is our Lord, and of great 


THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 193 


power: His understanding is infinite’ (Psa. 147:5). The truth 
in either of these texts concerning omnipresence complements 
that in the other. No portion of Scripture more fully describes 
God’s omniscience than the first twelve verses of the one hun- 
dred and thirty-ninth Psalm, a part of which was quoted in 
proof of omnipresence. ‘‘Neither is there any creature that is 
not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened 
unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do’’ (Heb. 4:13). 
If all things are opened to his view he must be infinite in knowl- 
edge, and that must include foreknowledge. ‘‘New things do I 
declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them’’ (Isa, 42: 
9). The latter text clearly implies foreknowledge. The same 
is necessarily implied in every prediction of the Bible. A few 
texts that should be understood as anthropomorphic in their na- 
ture seem at first to represent God as not omniscient, but as a 
whole the Bible clearly teaches that he is. 

Divine omniscience is of vital importance to religion. It is 
only on the ground of God’s omniscience in its fullest sense, 
including prescience, that we can implicitly trust his providence, 
and feel assured that he will direct us aright. If he did not 
know all things, then he would not be worthy to be trusted with 
the eternal welfare of our souls, and those trustful relations with 
him that now bring us such deep peace would not be possible. 
The marvelous adjustments of nature, the vast reach of the laws 
of nature, the many marks of wise design, and especially the 
human mind with its capacity for indefinite improvement all 
point to a source whose knowledge is infinite. 


IV. Moral Attributes 


Our inquiry concerning the nature of God now leads us from 
the non-ethical attributes which are especially modes of activity 
to those attributes which represent qualities of character, or the 
moral characteristics of God. Contemplation of the natural attri- 
butes of God fills a devout person with awe, but when he medi- 
tates on the moral attributes his soul is bowed down with rever- 
ence and his heart glows with love for God. 

In the anthropological argument for the existence of God 
it was shown that because man has a moral nature and that the 
moral can not come out of the non-moral, therefore his maker 
must be a moral being. Unless God has a moral nature no ration- 


194 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


al account can be given of such qualities in man. But it is certain 
man has, implanted deeply in his nature, feelings of moral obli- 
gation and a sense of ought and ought not in respect to moral 
duties. Proof of a moral nature in God is evident, not only from 
man’s inner consciousness, but also from the experience of society 
as a whole. It is true that when the experience of society is 
viewed at short range, it often appears that the affairs of men are 
not under the control of an overruling moral intelligence. Evil 
seems to prevail over the good, wicked men prosper and spread 
themselves ‘‘like the green bay-tree,’’ the righteous are afflicted 
undeservingly, and as is doubtless needed for the moral excellence 
of men, it appears that no guiding hand of a good God rules the 
world. But the larger perspective afforded by history and society 
in its broader aspect is evidence to the contrary. To whatever 
degree nations or communities have become corrupted morally, 
destruction has threatened them. Nature and history afford 
indications of a moral ruler of the world, but the Christian con- 
sciousness has no question here. To it no truth is more certain. 

Under the general classification of the moral attributes long 
lists have been given. But many of these attributes are compre- 
hended in others. The present tendency is to reduce the number 
of them to include only the more comprehensive ones. The 
moral attributes are sometimes reduced to two—holiness and love. 
And doubtless all important moral qualities of God may be com- 
prehended under these terms. Some persons would include 
all under one designation—holy love or loving righteousness. 
But properly to emphasize the more important aspects of God’s 
character for practical purposes we will consider God’s moral 
nature under five attributes. 

1. Holiness—Throughout the Bible both in the Old Testa- 
ment and in the New the assertion is continually made that God 
is holy. Representative texts are as follows: ‘‘ Who is like unto 
thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holi- 
ness... ? (Exod. 15:11). ‘‘I am the Lord: your God: 728 
I am holy’’ (Lev. 11:44). ‘‘But thou art holy, O thou that 
inhabitest the praises of Israel’? (Psa. 22:8). ‘‘Holy and 
reverend is his name’’ (Psa. 111:9). In Isaiah’s vision the sera- 
phims cried, ‘‘ Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts’’ (Isa. 6:3). 
‘*But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all 


THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 195 


manner of conversation ; because it is written, Be yea holy; for I 
am holy’’ (1 Peter 1: 15,16). 

Holiness means conformity to law in its broader and more 
common usage, and is often used synonymously with righteous- 
ness. It is most generally used of character, but it may be used 
with reference to conduct. A man whose character and conduct 
are especially in harmony with the law of God is said to be holy. 
But God is anterior to and superior to all law. Therefore the 
question may well be asked, ‘‘Can the holiness of God be defined 
in the above sense?’’ In reply it may be stated that for prac- 
tical purposes it is sufficient to say that a thing is right because 
God wills it so, and another thing is wrong because God has for- 
bidden it. Yet thoughtful minds must perceive at once that right 
is not constituted such by God’s merely willing it so. It is right 
in its very nature, and he wills it because it is right. It is not 
conceivable that God should will that men hate each other, but 
he does will that they love each other. He wills it because it is 
right that they should love each other. There are unchangeable 
principles in ethics and religion as there are in mathematics. 
It is as unthinkable that these ethical principles should be other- 
wise as that two plus two should equal five. Therefore God is 
holy, not in the sense that he conforms to a law enacted over him, 
but in that he is perfectly conformed both in character and 
actions to eternal principles of righteousness. It is his very na- 
ture to be in such perfect harmony with that which is right, to 
approve that which is virtuous and to condemn and disapprove 
the impure. 

But a more practical idea of the holiness of God is possible if 
viewed with regard to its different aspects. It has been described 
as having three elements. First, God is holy in the sense that his 
inner character is one of perfect goodness. This perfect good- 
ness in God is the sum and result of all his moral excellences very 
much as is like goodness in a man in a lesser degree. An essential 
of God’s holiness is his possession of all moral qualities in a per- 
fect degree. The second sense in which God is holy is that his 
actions are always perfectly holy in consistency with the perfect 
holiness of his inner character. He never acts contrary to his 
character; therefore he acts always in conformity with prin- 
ciples of righteousness. Men can sometimes maintain right con- 
duct only by acting in opposition to inner impulses and char- 


196 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


acter, but God always acts freely. His holy inner character not 
only determines his holy conduct, but furnishes the inspiration 
for it. Though it is possible for God to do evil in the sense that 
he has free-will and power, yet it is morally impossible because 
it is absolutely inconsistent with his perfect holiness of character. 

A third element in God’s holiness is that he makes that inner 
moral excellence of his own, character which determines his own 
conduct the standard for the conduct of his creatures also. He 
requires men to act ag he acts. ‘‘As he which hath called you is 
holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is 
written, Be ye holy, for I am holy.’’ He could not be consistent 
with his own character nor true to his own perfect goodness if he 
required anything less from his moral creatures than conformity 
to those same principles of right that are the standard of his 
own actions. God’s purpose in creating men was that they 
might glorify him by being holy, and his own holiness and self- 
consistency is the ground for demanding holiness in them. Neith- 
er does he demand of them the impossible. His method of pro- 
ducing holiness in the conduct of men is the same as that by 
which it exists in his own conduct. He provides for depraved 
men holiness of character through the work of salvation. The 
truly sanctified man is holy in his conduct in conformity to the 
holiness of his character. The practical aspect of God’s holiness 
then is in providing a standard for holiness in men. 

Because of his infinite goodness of character God must forever 
approve that which is good and disapprove the evil with an 
infinite intensity. His infinite holiness will ever be the condem- 
nation and terror of the wicked and the loving admiration of the 
righteous, who will always feel it is appropriate to worship him 
as in the words of inspiration. ‘‘ Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God 
of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.”’ 

2. Justice—That God is just is frequently affirmed in the 
Seriptures. ‘‘All his ways are judgment: A God of truth and 
without iniquity, just and right is he’’ (Deut. 32:4). ‘‘ Justice 
and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth 
shall go before thy face’’ (Psa. 89:14). ‘‘There is no God else 
beside me; a Just God and a Savior’’ (Isa. 45:21). ‘‘Just and 
true are thy ways, thou King of saints’’ (Rev. 15:8). 

Divine justice as here used means that attribute in God’s na- 
ture which causes him to render to all men what they deserve of 


THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 197 


either reward or punishment. It is a form of the divine holiness 
and is often deseribed as righteousness. To affirm that God is 
just or righteous is to say that he will certainly do what, and only 
what, ought to be done. He will be absolutely fair to all. In 
the popular thought of this divine attribute of justice, it is too 
often regarded as merely a disposition in God to inflict penalty 
for sin. But justice in God is much more than the certainty of 
punishment for sin. It does insure this, but also much more. It 
insures the right degree of both reward and punishment. God 
will punish the wicked, but no more than they merit, and he will 
reward the righteous as much as they deserve. He will be per- 
fectly fair to all men, both good and evil. He sees, not only the 
evil, but also the good that men do. 

The perfect holiness of God’s own nature and those eternal 
principles of right by which he is guided require that he reward 
righteousness among his creatures, and also that he feel dis- 
pleasure toward and punish those who disobey his precepts. All 
his creatures owe to him as their creator absolute obedience and 
subjection. The moral universe is constructed and conducted in 
conformity with holiness. To sin is to go against this law of 
the universe, and to those who do so the consequence is inevitable. 
The infliction of punishment either as to the fact or degree of it 
is not done arbitrarily by God. Right requires that God do it 
and he would not do right if he did not do it. 

Because we are made in the image of God, we may properly 
judge what is the nature of the attribute of justice in God, by 
comparing with it the sense of justice possessed by men. In men 
this sense of justice is a state of the sensibility or feelings that 
results from the presentation to the mind of those facts that have 
to do with those concerned. This sense is of the same class of 
mental states as the sense of the beautiful, or of the fit. Such 
a sense of justice exists in all men. We intuitively feel when a 
fellow man does a good and noble act of self-sacrifice that he 
should be rewarded, and if one commits a foul crime in purposely 
doing a great injury to a helpless person we feel he deserves to 
be punished. As all possess this sense of justice so it is alike in its 
requirements in all, when all understand the object of justice 
alike. It is true that to one person an act may appear to deserve 
punishment while to another it merits reward, but this differ- 
ence in Judgment is due to lack of full knowledge of the facts on 


198 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the part of one or both concerning the said act. But when facts 
are apprehended alike by all men their sense of justice will 
agree as to deserts. Because principles of truth and justice are 
always the same, this sense of justice must be the same in God as 
in man, except because his knowledge is perfect his justice must 
also be so. Our method of knowing divine justice is anthropo- 
pathic, but it were vain to tell us we can not thus know what is 
just in God. 

But what is the purpose of God’s infliction of penalty for sin? 
Among men wrong-doing is punished with more than one end in 
view. Civil government and*law exist for the public welfare, 
for the protection of the weak against the strong. But govern- 
ment is only efficient to the extent that its laws are respected and 
obeyed. Therefore, those who violate the law are punished that 
others may be deterred from doing likewise. But if punishment 
of the law-breaker is merely for the purpose of upholding the 
dignity of the law that others may be happy, then he suffers 
solely for the advantage of others, and the infliction of suffering 
in such a case would be unjust. If one does not deserve to suffer, 
justice forbids the infliction of suffering upon him. Therefore 
administrative justice must have a basis in retributive justice. 
The thief can not be justly imprisoned solely to deter others from 
stealing, nor to prevent his stealing more. The only proper 
eround for punishment of the thief is that he deserves to suffer. 
In eases of very flagrant crime a whole community rises up and 
demands that the perpetrator be punished. They may not stop 
to consider the beneficial effects of such punishment on their 
government, nor the possibility of the criminal’s being reformed 
by the penalty. Neither is their demand necessarily prompted 
by hot anger. They are moved by an outraged sense of justice. 
They intuitively feel it is right and fitting that he should be 
punished. And doubtless such is the principal reason why God 
inflicts punishment on sinners—because they deserve it and it is 
right and fitting that it be meted out to them. God’s purpose 
then in administering punishment is primarily as retribution, 
but it is also for the vindication of his law and moral government. 

3. Love.—No truth is more clearly stated in the Bible than 
that love is a characteristic of God. Some of the most exalted 
utterances of divine inspiration set forth this truth. An exam- 
ple is the great word of the apostle John ‘‘God is love’’ (1 John 


THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 199 


4:8). By this expression is meant that love is God’s abiding 
quality or characteristic. It is not a temporary disposition, but 
it is his essential nature to love. Another text of equal signifi- 
cance is, ‘‘God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten 
Son’’ (John 3:16). ‘‘ And we have known and believed the love 
that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love 
dwelleth in God, and God in him’”’ (1 John 4:16). ‘‘But God 
ecommendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet 
sinners, Christ died for us’’ (Rom. 5:8). These are sufficient 
Seriptural proof that love is a divine attribute. The next point 
for inquiry is concerning the nature of love in God. 

Love may be defined as an emotion that causes one to crave 
the presence or possession of the object loved and to desire to pro- 
mote the welfare of that object. In the light of such a definition 
a twofold aspect of love igs evident—the desire to possess the 
object and the desire to benefit it. From two sources we may 
obtain help in understanding what love isin God. First we may 
learn what it is by comparing it with love as it exists among men 
who are created in his image. The second source is that grand 
example of the love of God that was exhibited in Christ. 

Love as exhibited in human life ig both a craving for and a 
living for its object. Both of these elements always exist in love, 
but in varying proportions. In its lowest form love is largely a 
selfish craving for its object. In its more exalted manifestation 
this selfish disposition is largely, but not entirely, lost in a desire 
to benefit the object loved. The noblest form of human love, 
that which exists in the mother for her child, has a large degree 
of this unselfish element in it. Her love moves her to much 
service and self-sacrifice for its well-being, even sometimes to the 
laying down of her own life. And yet though her love is so self- 
forgetful, it desires reciprocation. This craving to be loved in 
return by the one loved is an essential and inextinguishable part 
of love. Judging then from what we know of love as it exists in 
us, we conclude that love in God must contain in perfectly bal- 
anced proportions these two impulses. He desires first to give 
himself for the good of those he loves, and secondly he desires 
that they respond by loving him and giving themselves to him in 
return. In a being of perfect goodness as is God no attribute can 
be more desirable and helpful to others than holy love. 

Also the manifestation of God’s love in Christ and hig work 


200 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


agrees with our definition of love in its double aspect. God so 
loved the world that he gave his Son, which was in reality a giv- 
ing of himself. God gave his best for men. Jesus gave his life for 
them. But this ig not all of the expression of God’s love in Christ. 
He is likened to a shepherd who goes out at great self-sacrifice 
to find his lost sheep. He would not only help, but also possess 
the object of his love. Christ expresses the love of God as 
a self-giving for men’s well-being and a desire that they give 
themselves to him in return. Therefore love in God is of the 
same nature as love in us, but perfect in degree. 

But love in its highest fornr does not necessarily imply ap- 
proval of its object, as is often wrongly assumed. Such is not 
true of the highest type of love as we know it among mankind. 
How often the love of good parents continues to follow a way- 
ward child even though they strongly disapprove of the child’s 
conduct. A godly mother may loathe the vile sins of a wicked 
son, but in spite of his vileness she loves him with a love that 
never wavers. She desires, even at great personal loss to do him 
good and to turn him to righteousness. And such is the love of 
God. Therefore he loves sinners, and freely gives his best for 
their welfare. Even his perfect holiness does not exclude his 
loving sinners, nor is it in any way incompatible with such love, 
but rather holiness and love are necessary to each other. Without 
love God would not. be holy, and without holiness he could not 
be love, and perfection in either one of these attributes requires 
perfection in the other. 

That God is love is affirmed by the Scriptures and since they 
have been shown to be the Word of God we should believe it is 
true on that ground if there were no other reasons for believing 
it. But when we look about us and see how many benefits come 
to men to increase their happiness, when we consider that they 
might have much more misery than they now have, and when we 
see positive marks of a kind providence we are constrained to 
believe for these reasons also that God is good and loving. These 
things must not be forgotten. Nevertheless, insoluble perplexities 
present themselves when we attempt to reconcile with the idea 
‘that God is infinitely good and powerful the fact of the existence 
of evil in the world. In other words, if God possesses perfect 
goodness and infinite power why did he make evil possible? 
The opposer of theism supposes he has here a conclusive argument 


THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 201 


in favor of his position. Theists may not be able to answer the 
question, but certainly the opposer has manifold more and great- 
er difficulties in maintaining his theory. 

Atheists, materialists, pantheists, and all other fatalists find 
no difficulty in this, the problem of theodicy, because they as- 
sume all things are as they are because they could not be other- 
wise. But theists must regard evil as being a contingency—that it 
might not have been. Evidently God does not compel men to 
sin, nor does he will that they do so. He might have prevented 
evil by refusing to create men or by creating them without the 
capacity to do evil. But to exclude the possibility of sin would 
have also excluded rewardable virtue. Then man could have had 
only automatic excellence and he would have been only an auto- 
maton, or not a free moral being. But the question again arises, 
how could an infinitely good God create a race of free moral 
beings when he evidently foreknew that many of them would sin 
and suffer the penalty of sin? 

Various attempts have been made to answer the question. The 
universalist proposes final salvation for all. The optimist says 
all that is, is best. The annihilationist thinks to find a solution in 
annihilation of the wicked. Others have vainly attempted an 
answer by referring the origin of sin and evil to a previous exis- 
tence, while Calvinists seek relief in the idea that sin is decreed 
by God and is a part of God’s plan. Space forbids a full state- 
ment and refutation of these inadequate and unscriptural the- 
ories. It is sometimes said that God gave men the power to 
refrain from sinning and that therefore whatever evil comes upon 
them as a result of their own sin they deserve. It is held that 
eternal blessedness should be made possible to the race, even 
at the expense of future punishment to some who sin and there- 
fore are justly punished as the result of their own choices. This 
view sufficiently vindicates the justice of God. But still the 
question remains, why did God make it possible that some should 
suffer in order that others might be blessed ? 

This is the real question of theodicy. Attempts have been 
made to show that existence under any conditions is a blessing 
and better than non-existence. If such could be shown to be true 
the problem would be solved, but such can not be certainly 
proved. Probably the problem of theodicy must remain for the 
present one of the inscrutable mysteries. Many such mysteries 


202 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


must be admitted to exist in connection with known facts both 
in religion and science. In spite of this mystery concerning the 
existence of evil in God’s universe mankind is possessed of an 
inalienable conviction that God is good. Men can not intelli- 
gently complain against God for giving them existence. Nor- 
mally their joys vastly outweigh their sorrows. But sorrows do 
come. Yet men do not complain against God, because he has 
shown goodness at infinite self-sacrifice in providing a remedy. 
The existence of evil among men presents a dark picture, but 
there is light in the gospel of Christ. Everlasting happiness is 
made possible by God. And men can not avoid the conviction 
that God is good. 

4. Mercy.—Mercy is love for the miserable. Being a form of 
love, it is sometimes included under the latter in treating of the 
attributes of God. But inasmuch as mercy has so large a place 
in Christian Revelation and in the relation of God to sinful men, 
it is not improper that Christian theology should give it separate 
treatment for emphasis. The condition of the object of love is 
that which gives love the character of mercy. Mercy is not only 
the disposition to treat, but also the act of treating, an offender 
less severely than in strict justice he deserves to be treated, espe- 
cially when such lenience is the result of benevolence or com- 
passion. 

Various other terms closely related in meaning to merey are 
pity, compassion, forbearance, long-suffering, clemency, grace, 
and pardon. Grace is favor shown to the undeserving. Pardon, 
forgiveness, or mercy is favor shown to those who justly deserve 
punishment. Pardon is mere remission of the outward penalty 
deserved by the offender, forgiveness is mere dismissal of the 
displeasure of the offended toward the offender, but mercy seeks 
the highest possible good of the offender. Mercy then in its fullest 
and broadest sense is worthy of Him who alone is love. No fact 
has greater significance for a world of sinners than that glorious 
truth that God is merciful. ‘‘His merey endureth forever.’ 

The truth of divine mercy is clear only in the light of revela- 
tion. Indications of divine goodness are abundant in nature, but 
violations of its law are punished inexorably. No mercy is 
found there. But the Bible is filled with affirmations that God is 
merciful. A few of them are sufficient. ‘‘The Lord, the Lord 
God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in 


THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 203 


goodness and truth, keeping merey for thousands, forgiving 
iniquity and transgression and sin’’ (Exod. 34:6,7). ‘‘The 
Lord is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity 
and transgression’? (Num. 14:18). ‘‘The Lord is merciful and 
eracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. He will not 
always chide: neither will he keep his anger forever. He hath not 
dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our 
iniquities. For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is 
his merey toward them that fear him. As far as the east is from 
the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us. Like 
as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear 
him. For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are 
dust’’ (Psa. 103: 8-14). Each of the twenty-six verses of the 
136th Psalm ends with the statement of the great truth, ‘‘ His 
merey endureth forever.”’ 

Like love, mercy is evidently similar in God to what it is in 
us. It is not merely a form of thought with God, but it contains 
an emotional element. If it is not benevolent feeling in God, then 
it ceases to be mercy in a sense that gives a blessed assurance of 
help in time of need. 

5. Truth.—The attribute of truth in God may well be con- 
sidered under two aspects—veracity and fidelity. By veracity 
is meant that God is truthful in his statements. Because God 
is truth in this sense we may safely believe the statements of 
divine revelation. Veracity in God is a result of both absolute 
knowledge and of holy feeling. Unless he possesses unlimited 
knowledge we can not be certain that he always knows the truth, 
and therefore his statements may contain error. But the most 
important element in the divine veracity is his perfect moral 
character that results in holy feeling. This is that which is 
most highly esteemed among men as an assurance of their verac- 
ity. Veracity in God requires that his revelation be true, but not 
that it be all the truth. There is much truth, no doubt, which is 
beyond our grasp. The revelation of such would not only be use- 
less, but would obscure the truth that otherwise could be under- 
stood. Neither does veracity require that a divine revelation be 
such that it be incapable of being misunderstood. 

By affirming fidelity of God we mean that he is faithful. 
What he has promised he will perform. Human promises may 
fail of performance because unforeseen circumstances arise that 


204 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


make fulfilment impossible, and also because in some instances 
the promises themselves are deceitfully given. But with God 
omnipotence guarantees the fulfilment of his promises as far 
as ability is concerned and his holiness gives assurance of his 
voluntary faithfulness. Men often fulfil their promises from 
no higher motive than for mere personal honor or conventional 
pride, but God’s faithfulness is the result of holy sensibility 
and perfect moral character. Because of this his promises are 
sure. They can not fail, because God is true in an infinite degree. 
This is the ground of the Christian’s unwavering trust in the 
fulfilment of God’s promises. 


CHAPTER IT 
THE DIVINE TRINITY 


By the divine Trinity is meant the union of the three per- 
sons—Father, Son, and Spirit—in the one Godhead. The idea 
of a divine trinity is peculiar to the religion of the Bible. No 
non-Christian religion knows any such doctrine as that of 
Christian Trinitarianism. Polytheistic religions have often 
srouped their gods variously, and not infrequently this group- 
ing has taken the form of triads. But such triads represent 
tritheism, being mere groups of divinities without historical con- 
nection seemingly, and evidently without similarity to the 
Christian idea of three persons in one Godhead. Such triads 
among heathen divinities have been sometimes suggested by the 
ancient conception of three divisions of the universe—heaven, 
the earth, and the underworld. An example of such a triad is 
that of the ancient polytheistic nature worship of Babylonia in 
which Amu is represented as the god who ruled in heaven, Bel 
on the earth, and Ea under the earth. Another cause for group- 
ing in triads is the family idea or the idea of a god, his wife, 
and their child. Among non-Christian religions, the triad of 
Hinduism—Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva—is the nearest approach 
to the divine Trinity. 

The doctrine of the Trinity is not only peculiar to Chris- 
tianity, but it is also necessary to it. It is a great error to 
suppose this doctrine is a mere speculative truth of no practical 
value or interest to Christians generally. It is fundamental to 
Christianity. Christianity would cease to be Christianity with- 
out it. It is that which determines the nature of the religion 
of all true Christians as to inner belief and experience. Many 
Christians are doubtless unable clearly to state the doctrine, but 
nevertheless they believe it as to its various elements. 

If there is no Trinity there is no divine Christ. If one 
believes Christ is not divine, consistency requires him also to 
believe that there is no adequate sacrificial atonement for sin, 
and that the atonement has no greater value than its moral in- 
fluence. And if no adequate sacrifice for sin has been offered, 
pardon and regeneration as an instantaneous work of grace must 
be given up. In short, he must substitute salvation by works 


for salvation by faith. Belief in the doctrine of the Trinity is 
205 


206 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


that which distinguishes between an evangelic and a rationalistic 
religion. These are not only the logical consequences of anti- 
trinitarian belief, but the history of Unitarianism confirms such 
statements. Not only the older Socinianism, and the New Eng- 
land Unitarianism, but also the modern ‘‘liberal Christianity’’ 
rejects the divinity of Christ, and all unite in rejecting all the 
other doctrines before mentioned. With them salvation is by 
character and not by grace through faith. It is a mere natural 
process. The denial of the Trinity logically and actually leads 
to a faith essentially different from evangelic Christianity and 
an entirely different interpretation of the New Testament 
throughout. The doctrine of the Trinity is not useless as has 
been affirmed, but vitally important to Christianity. If it is 
not true, We are yet in our sins. 

The truths of Christianity thus far considered are of such 
a nature that their truthfulness must be admitted on rational 
erounds. Now we approach a doctrine of pure revelation. But 
with the proof of the divine authority of the Scriptures already 
considered, we may properly accept their testimony as adequate 
reason for our belief of it. Though the doctrine of the Trinity 
may not be discovered by the reason, yet when it is revealed 
by Seriptures it is found to be, not contradictory to reason, but 
logically necessary to the Christian system. 


I. The Doctrine of the Trinity 


The truth of the divine Trinity, like other aspects of Chris- 
tian doctrine, is not stated in the Bible in scientific form, but 
the elements of the doctrine are clearly stated there even though 
it appears to be done incidentally in many instances. The con- 
sideration of the subject involves questions of fact, and also 
questions of the harmony of the facts. And it should ever be 
borne in mind that the facts must stand even though they can 
not be harmonized satisfactorily to all minds. Our first aim 
should be to learn the Bible facts, and then seek to harmonize 
them. Even if an attempt to harmonize them results in no 
more than showing they are not contradictory, the doctrine may 
reasonably be accepted. Our aim then should be first to set forth 
the constituent elements of the doctrine as found in the Scrip- 
tures. 

1. Biblical Elements of the Doctrine.—The first fact of the 


aed mii 


—————E el 


THE DIVINE TRINITY 207 


Bible that is a constituent element of this doctrine is the unity 
of God. Whatever else the Bible may say, this fundamental 
truth must not be denied. Trinity must not be assumed to be 
tritheism. The Bible constantly affirms that God is one in that 
he has no equal or companion and also in that he is not com- 
pounded. This has been shown in discussing the divine attri- 
bute of unity. God’s unity is a fundamental truth in the doc- 
trine of the Trinity. 

The second Bible fact that must be given consideration here 
is that divine attributes and titles are ascribed, not only to the 
Father but also to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. They are 
all alike represented to us as being God, equal in power and 
glory. But the terms Father, Son, and Spirit are not to be 
understood as mere distinctions in designating one being ag a 
matter of emphasizing different relations of God to men. The 
Seriptures represent each of the three as saying I of himself. 
The Father addresses the Son with the pronoun ‘‘thou’’ (Heb. 
1:9), the Son addresses the Father as ‘‘thou’’ (John 17:5), 
and they speak of the Holy Spirit as ‘‘he’’ and ‘‘him’’ (John 
14:26). They act upon one another and are objects of one 
another’s action. These facts point to three distinct persons 
who are God. But the fact is that their attributes are the same, 
and these are qualities of and inseparable from the divine sub- 
stance; therefore the substance of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit is the same. These then are the vital facts of the Scrip- 
tures from which the doctrine of the Trinity is constructed. 
God is one, yet in some sense he is three. He is one as to essence, 
but three as to personality. Fuller Scriptural proof of these 
facts will be given in the appropriate place, but these are the 
facts as clearly set forth in the Bible. 

2. The Doctrine in Early Church Symbols.—D oubtless ata 
very early period in the church’s history the foregoing truths 
of the Bible concerning God’s threefold nature were held as they 
are by many devout Christians today as separate, distinct facts 
without any attempt being made to harmonize them. Such un- 
questioning faith was all right for practical purposes as long 
as conditions remained such in the church that a harmony of 
these truths was not needed. Soon, however, heresies arose 
which emphasized some of these facts to the exclusion of the 
others. Ebionites denied the divinity of Christ. Gnostics re- 


208 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


garded him as a mere emanation from God, dependent, and not 
equal with God. Sabellians regarded the same person as at 
once Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, these three names being 
used merely to express different relations of God to men. The 
Arians affirmed Christ is not eternal, but that he is the first 
and highest of all created beings. 

It was the purpose of withstanding the evil influence of 
these heresies that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity gradu- 
ally began to be formulated. Often great Christian truths have 
been held as objects of faith long before they have been set 
forth in doctrinal form and their various elements harmonized. 
Sometimes such formulation of doctrinal truths takes place only 
when it becomes necessary to offset opposing heresies. The con- 
flict of the early church with the Arian heresy was especially 
fruitful in leading to the formulation of the Trinitarian doc- 
trine. Because of the sharp contention between the opposing 
factions, the Emperor Constantine was moved to convene the 
First Ecumenical Council, which met at Nicea, in Asia Minor, in 
the year 325 A. D. One of the objects of this council was to 
frame a statement of this Christian doctrine that would include 
all the Seriptural elements and harmonize with the religious 
convictions of Christians generally. Though creeds or state- 
ments of faith because humanly constructed have sometimes 
obscured rather than elucidated the Bible teaching, yet it must 
be allowed that the mature thought concerning the divinity of 
Christ of many such fearless defenders of the truth as Athan- 
asius enabled them in framing this Nicene creed, or symbol, to 
state the doctrine of the Trinity with a degree of clearness that 
has seldom if ever been surpassed. The Nicene symbol as given 
by H. C. Sheldon in his History of Christian Doctrine is as 
follows: 

‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all 
things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, 
begotten of the Father, the only begotten, that is, of the essence 
of the Father, God of God, and Light of Light, very God of 
very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the 
Father; by whom all things were made, in heaven and earth; 
who, for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was 
incarnate, and was made man; He suffered, and the.third day 
He rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence He cometh to 


THE DIVINE TRINITY 209 


judge the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy 
Ghost. And those who say, there was a time when He [the 
Son] was not; and, He was not before He was made; and, He 
was made out of nothing, or out of another substance or thing, 
or the Son of God is created, or changeable or alterable—such 
the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church condemns.’’ 

Due to the fact that this statement of faith was formulated 
for the purpose of upholding the true divinity of Christ and not 
especially to affirm the fact of the Trinity, the result was defi- 
ciency in its statement concerning the Holy Ghost, of whom it 
merely affirms belief. Athanasius and others held this state- 
ment to imply belief in the Trinity, while their opposers denied 
that such a meaning’ was intended. The consequent confusion 
resulted in the calling of the Council of Constantinople in 381 
A. D. That council amended the Nicene creed by adding an 
affirmation of the divinity and equality of the Holy Ghost with 
the Father and Son. But a still more definite statement of belief 
in the Trinity is that known as the Athanasian creed. It is 
of unknown authorship and not the product of a church council. 
Though it is not the formation of Athanasius, yet it is not im- 
properly designated as it is, because it has had a vast influence 
in supporting the doctrine of the Trinity for which that heroic 
ehurch father so earnestly contended. It is in part as follows: 

‘“‘We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; 
neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. 
For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and 
another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, 
the Majesty coeternal.... So the Father is God: the Son is God: 
and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods: 
but one God. ... The Father is made of none: neither created, 
nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor 
created: but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and 
of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten: but pro- 
eeeding. .. . And in this Trinity none is afore, or after another: 
none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Per- 
sons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as afore- 
said: the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity, is to be 
worshiped. ’’ 

This remarkable statement of belief in the divine Trinity 


210 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


is regarded as being in harmony with and inclusive of all the 
vital elements of the Bible teaching on the subject, as well as 
representative of the faith of the church through the centuries. 
No later statements by theologians or church councils have suc- 
ceeded in setting the doctrine in clearer light. ‘‘When we 
consider the incomprehensible nature of the Godhead, the mys- 
terious character of the doctrine of the Trinity, the exceeding 
complexity and difficulty of the problem which the church had 
to solve in presenting the doctrine that there are three persons 
and one God, in such a manner as to meet the requirements of 
Seripture and the convictions of believers, and yet avoid all 
contradiction, we can hardly fail to refer the church creeds 
on this subject, which have for ages secured assent and consent, 
not to inspiration, strictly speaking, but to the special guidance 
of the Holy Spirit’’ (Charles Hodge—Systematic Theology, 
Vol. 1, p. 478). 

3. The Doctrine Stated—The foregoing ancient symbols con- 
sist of a careful statement of the different Scriptural elements 
of the Trinitarian doctrine set in proper relation to each other. 
But it is noticeable that they attempt only a formulation, not 
a philosophy, of the doctrine. They are objects for faith, but 
are not designed to satisfy the reason. Here the question may 
appropriately be asked, ‘‘Is a philosophy of the Trinity pos- 
sible?’’ The care with which the ancient statements of the 
doctrine avoid attempting such a philosophy is evidence that 
their formulators doubted its possibility. Some later writers 
have endeavored to set forth a philosophical statement of the 
doctrine for the purpose of proving or illustrating it. But all 
attempts to reason out and illustrate that which is so evidently 
inconceivable are necessarily unsatisfactory. The intellect, 
sensibilities, and will in the soul of man have been much pointed 
to as illustrating trinity in God. They do show the possibility 
of a certain triplicity in unity, but such an illustration leads to 
the Sabellian rather than the true idea of the Trinity. We 
think no satisfactory philosophy of the Trinity is possible, be- 
cause the idea is incomprehensible to men. 

The doctrine may be stated, however, in such a manner that 
no fact of Seripture is omitted or contradicted. To do this 
it is necessary to avoid Unitarianism on the one extreme and 
tritheism on the other. God must be regarded as one being, yet 


THE DIVINE TRINITY 211 


three as to person. To affirm both unity and trinity of God 
is not to say that he is one and yet three in the same sense. 
Such would be absurd and it is not supposable that millions 
of intelligent Christians believe an absurdity. In some sense 
he is one, in another sense he is three. Probably for practical pur- 
pose no better distinction can be made between these two senses 
than to say as is commonly said and as the church symbols affirm, 
that God is one as to substance, but three as to person. Such 
an idea ig incomprehensible to us, but it has the practical ad- 
vantage of showing that the Scriptural facts of unity and trinity 
in God are not irreconcilable nor contradictory to each other. 
The term ‘‘person’’ as used in relation to members of the God- 
head is not to be understood as identical in meaning with its 
use in relation to men. But what man is competent to say that 
God ean not subsist in a mode peculiar to himself which we can 
not comprehend because it is beyond the range of our experience? 

With the fact established that the elements of the doctrine 
are not contradictory to each other, it is not unreasonable to 
believe them. Christian thought and faith may properly ac- 
cept these truths of the Bible unquestioningly and without ex- 
plication. This the devout heart does, and experiences in so 
doing the blessedness of believing. 

4. Mystery of the Trinity—-The principal objection urged 
against the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is an incomprehen- 
sible mystery and therefore the Unitarian charges us with illib- 
erality for requiring belief in it. It has already been shown that 
the doctrine does not involve an arithmetical absurdity nor a 
contradiction by affirming that God is three and yet one, for these 
are not affirmed of God in the same sense. Yet when this is said 
the opposer still makes the charge of illiberality against those 
who insist on belief in the truth of the Trinity. That the doc- 
trine contains much mystery we readily admit, and if we insisted 
that men comprehend the idea exhaustively we should indeed 
be unreasonable in our requirements. But all that is required 
for acceptance of the doctrine is belief of the truth of the Trinity 
as it is stated in the Bible. And it is not necessary that all its 
mysteries be elucidated before we can believe it. 

If we may properly believe only that which is free from 
mystery, then how narrow indeed must be the range of credible 
truth! Mystery is met on every hand in nature. We know 


212 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


many facts through phenomena, yet do not understand the 
mysterious cause of their phenomena. That the mind controls 
the body is well known as a fact by consciousness, but what is 
the connection between the mind and the body is an inexplicable 
mystery. Science is well aware of the fact that gravitation oper- 
ates in a marvelous manner in directing the course of the heaven- 
ly bodies, but what is that mysterious power and how it attracts 
is clothed in mystery. Mystery enshrouds many of the things 
we know most surely. We are familiar with the fact of physical 
life, but what it is we can not know. The common grain of wheat 
of which our daily bread is made contains within itself the 
mysterious power when planted in the ground to germinate and 
produce other similar grains of wheat. When we say God is a 
spirit we say what even Unitarians recognize as being a facet, 
but none of us know what is a spirit. It is incomprehensible to 
us even though we know it is true. Why, therefore, should we 
regard the truth of the Trinity as incredible simply because it 
is mysterious? With evidence that what the Bible says God 
says, and with clear statements there of the truth of the Trinity, 
it ought to be believed even though it is mysterious. 


II. Bible Proofs of the Doctrine 


In no place in the Scriptures does the word “‘trinity’’ occur. 
This has sometimes been regarded as an evidence that Trinitarian 
proofs are not to be found there. But it might as properly be 
reasoned that beeause the words ‘‘omniscience’’ or ‘‘omnipre- 
sence’? do not occur there that therefore the Scriptures do 
not teach that God knows all things and is everywhere present; 
or that because ‘‘Decalog’’ and ‘‘Pentateuch’’ are not terms 
of the Bible therefore the Ten Commandments and five books 
of Moses are not to be found there. The absence of the term in 
the Bible is no evidence that the truth for which it stands is 
not found there under other terminology. Rather it is because 
the truth of the Trinity is taught there that theology has made 
use of this term so well adapted to the brief expression of that 
truth. 

Also it is true that the Bible does not formulate or directly 
state the doctrine. Therefore it is not to be expected that in 
giving Bible proof of the doctrine any single passage may be 
given that adequately affirms Trinitarianism. The most cer- 


THE DIVINE TRINITY 213 


tain proof is to be found in the vast multitude of texts that 
imply it by affirming the constituent elements of the doctrine 
—that God is one, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are 
distinet persons, and that each of them is divine. When these 
elements are shown to be contained in the Bible and are set in 
proper relation the doctrine of the Trinity is the result. The 
fuller exhibition of these elements will be given under other 
headings concerning Christ and the Holy Spirit. Here our pur- 
pose is to give only such passages as contain all the essential 
elements of the doctrine. 

1. The Baptismal Formula.—‘‘Go ye therefore, and teach all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost’’ (Matt. 28:19). In this well- 
known injunction of Jesus the implication is clear, (1) that 
the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct, because each one is 
named in the one passage; (2) that each is a person, because 
Christian baptism is to be in the name of each, which could be 
true only of persons; (3) that each is divine, because disciples 
can properly be baptized only in the name of the Divine Being. 
These facts also imply the equality of the three members of the 
Godhead. Whatever is implied here of the Father is also 1m- 
plied of the Holy Ghost. If ‘‘in the name of the Father’’ im- 
plies his personality, as much is implied of the Son and Spirit 
by the similar expressions concerning them. This passage has 
always been accepted by Christians generally as sufficient proof 
of the doctrine of the Trinity, and it certainly is worthy of 
much respect for critical thought. In this formula for baptism 
God has made provisions for this important truth to be kept 
constantly before the minds of the church as a fundamental 
truth of the faith. 

2. Paul’s Benediction.—‘‘The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, 
be with you all. Amen’’ (2 Cor. 18:14). In this prayer the 
apostle prays, (1) to Christ for his grace or favor to the Cor- 
inthians; (2) to the Father for his love to be extended to them; 
and (3) to the Holy Ghost for his communion, or fellowship. 
Here the divinity of each of the three is evident because such 
a prayer can properly be addressed only to God. The person- 
ality of each is clearly implied, for only persons ean show favor, 
manifest love, or be objects for the fellowship of men. The dis- 


214 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


tinction of the three is unmistakably implied in the word- 
ing of the text. Every repetition of this prayer is therefore a 
recognition of the divine Trinity. 

3. Other General Trinitarian Texts—Except for its probable 
ungenuineness, no text in the Bible would have greater value 
as proof of the Trinity than 1 John 5:7. ‘‘For there are three 
that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy 
Ghost: and these three are one.’’ This statement is practically 
an affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity, but its absence 
from all the ancient manuscripts but one, from all the early 
church fathers, and from all the ancient versions except the 
Vulgate has been considered sufficient reason for its omission 
from most of the later English translations. It is supposed by 
scholars to be an interpolation, probably having been originally 
a marginal note, which was brought into the text unwittingly 
by an ancient scribe. Whatever may be the real degree of its 
right to a place in the sacred text, its conspicuous absence in the 
ancient texts has so discredited its genuineness that it has no 
value in support of the doctrine and so may as well be dismissed 
from the consideration. 

It was said by church fathers, ‘‘Go to the Jordan and you 
shall see the Trinity.’’ On the occasion of Jesus’ baptism the 
Father addressed the Son from heaven and the Holy Spirit de- 
scended upon him in the form of a dove (Matt. 3:16, 17). The 
least that can be said of this text is that it clearly distinguishes 
the three members of the Godhead. To most minds it is an im- 
portant support of the Trinity. Certainly it is so if taken in 
connection with other texts. In Jesus’ discourse to his disciples 
following the institution of the last supper, which is recorded 
in John 14, 15, 16, he tells them about the Father and addresses 
the Father, and promises to send to them the Holy Spirit, who 
will comfort, guide, and teach them. Jesus thus clearly recog- 
nizes the personality of all three and the works he ascribes to 
the Spirit, including showing ‘‘things to come’’ (John 16:13) 
clearly imply divinity and equality with the Father, and the 
Son. 

Another text that distinguishes clearly, by naming them, the 
three members of the Godhead and implies the divinity of the 
Spirit by attributing to him eternity is as follows: ‘‘How much 
more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit 


THE DIVINE TRINITY 215 


offered himself without spot to God’’ (Heb. 9:14). Still other 
texts of similar value may be cited. ‘‘For through him we both 
have access by one Spirit unto the Father’’ (Eph. 2:18). ‘‘ Elect 
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanc- 
tification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the 
blood of Jesus Christ’’ (1 Peter 1:2). If the three last texts 
cited do not reach the goal of full proof of the Trinity, they at 
least have value as partial evidence and are valid proof in con- 
nection with those texts that supply whatever they may lack. 

A proof of the Trinity of a somewhat different nature is the 
Hebrew name for God, Elohim, which is the plural form. Some 
Trinitarians have questioned its value as such proof, and standing 
alone it probably would not be conclusive, but the argument 
from it is immensely strengthened by the fact that it is often 
used with the plural pronoun of the first person, as ‘‘Let ws 
make man in our image.’’ Such statements should doubtless be 
regarded as implying a truth not clearly revealed in the Old 
Testament, but which was later to be made known; much as some 
of the early predictions of Christ’s salvation, such as the state- 
ment that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the 
serpent, but dimly intimate that blessed truth so vividly fore- 
told later by Isaiah. To many minds the foregoing proofs from 
the Bible are sufficient evidence of the truth of the doctrine 
under discussion, but it is well to remember that these are not 
the surest proofs of the Trinity; they are yet to be given. 


Ill. The Divinity of Christ 


That there is one God who is a person and that the Father 
is that one person is allowed by all theists. Proof of the divinity 
and personality of the Father is therefore superfluous here in 
support of the doctrine of the Trinity. All Unitarians admit 
these to be facts. Also the personality of Christ is generally 
admitted. That Christ is a person distinct from the Father has 
been shown and Unitarians usually recognize him as being so. 
The important and vital question concerning Christ in the Trini- 
tarian discussion is concerning whether or not he is God in the 
highest sense of the term. The whole argument turns on this 
point. If it can be shown from the Scriptures that Christ is 
essentially divine and equal with the Father the real objection 
of Unitarians to the truth of the Trinity is answered. That 


216 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Christ was truly human was denied by the ancient Gnostics, but 
today almost all classes allow he was man. Unitarians deny 
and Trinitarians affirm he was also truly God. The truth must be 
determined by the words of Seripture. To exhibit and comment 
on all the Bible gives on the divinity of Christ would require 
much space. For the sake of brevity some of the more important 
Bible proofs are grouped under a few main heads. 

1. Divine Titles of Christ—One of the methods by which the 
Seriptures teach the divinity of Christ is by calling him by the 
various names of deity. Certain terms are commonly used in 
the Bible to denote the Divine Being and these are used of 
Christ in the same sense. Nothing can be more reasonable 
than to understand that his being called God implies that he 
is God. 

(1) Christ is called God—No more positive statement is 
possible than that found in the opening verses of John’s Gospel. 
‘‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, 
and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with 
God. All things were made by him’’ (John 1:1-3). Here Christ 
not only is given the divine title ‘‘God,’’ but the direct and 
positive affirmation is made that he is God. That the term 
‘‘Word,’’ or as it appears in the Greek, ‘‘Logos,’’ is used to 
denote Christ is certain from verse fourteen, where it is said, 
‘‘The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.’’ The open- 
ing words of the text affirm the preexistence and eternity of 
Christ. It does not state that in the beginning, which probably 
refers to the beginning of created things, the Logos began to be 
or was created, but it affirms that ‘‘in the beginning was the 
Word.’’ He was already existing when time and creation began, 
because, as the text further states, ‘‘ All things were made by 
him; and without him was not anything made that was made.”’ 
This statement absolutely excludes the possibility of his having 
been created himself, by affirming that he made all that was 
made; and surely he could not have made himself, for he could 
not have acted before he existed. Therefore he is eternal, and 
because eternal, divine. 

Unitarians have not been slow to see that this text if inter- 
preted as it reads is fatal to their theory, and have therefore 
endeavored to interpret it to harmonize with their teaching. 
They contend that the omission in the original of the article 


THE DIVINE TRINITY 217 


before the second use of the word ‘‘God’’ requires the indefinite 
article in the English translation. Then the text reads, ‘‘In 
the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God 
and the Word was a God.’’ But the highest authorities in New 
Testament Greek state that usually if the article is used before 
both the subject and the predicate they are convertible and 
what is true of one is true of the other. Then if the inspired 
writer had thus repeated the article in this case he would teach 
the doctrine of the ancient Patripassians, that God and the 
Word were identical. But if he had done so then the last clause 
in the first verse would contradict the middle one that the 
Logos was with God, which implies that in some sense they 
were not identical. The preposition ‘‘with’’ implies a relation, 
which is not possible except there be more than one. Therefore 
the verse is in exact harmony with the idea of the divine Trinity. 
The Logos is both with God and yet is God. That he is God 
in the highest sense is clear from the statements that he is both 
eternal and creator. The insertion of the article in question 
would have made this text contradictory, not only to itself, 
but to the idea of the Trinity. But no language could have been 
used that would have better supported Trinitarianism. It is 
a mistake to suppose that the omission of the Greek article 
before the word ‘‘God’’ indicates another than the deity, as is 
shown by many such texts as the following where it is omitted 
in the original text. ‘‘ With men this is impossible; but with 
God [not the God] all things are possible’’ (Matt. 19:26). 

When the apostle Thomas, who had doubted Jesus’ resur- 
rection, saw the Master in his resurrected form he exclaimed, 
‘‘My Lord and my God’’ (John 20:28). These words of Thomas 
eould not have been a mere ejaculation addressed to no one, else 
they would have been profane. But that they were not pro- 
fane, and that they were true of him and not a mistaken idea 
of Thomas, is evident from Jesus’ answer of approval which 
immediately follows. ‘‘But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, 
O God, is for ever and ever’’ (Heb. 1:8). Here the inspired 
writer is endeavoring to show that Christ is superior to the 
angels, and therefore he quotes these words from the Old Testa- 
ment in which he is called God. ‘‘God was manifest in the 
flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the 
Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory’’ 


218 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


(1 Tim. 3:16). This verse is true only of Christ, not of the 
Father. Therefore Christ is here called God. ‘‘For unto us 
a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall 
be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, 
Counsellor, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, The Prince 
of Peace’’ (Isa. 9:6). ‘‘ Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and 
shall bring forth a son, and they shall call hig name Emmanuel, 
which being interpreted is, God with us’’ (Matt. 1:23). The 
ascription to Christ of the divine title ‘‘God’’ in the two fore- 
voing texts is so clear that no comment is necessary. ‘‘Take 
heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the 
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the 
church of God, which he [God] hath purchased with his own 
blood’’ (Acts 20:28). Here it is said that the church is pur- 
chased with the blood of God. Therefore Christ is called God. 

‘“Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the 
flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever’’ (Rom. 
9:5). This verse first affirms that Christ, as to his human nature, 
is descended from Israel, but in antithesis to the words ‘‘accord- 
ing to the flesh’’ the Apostle says he is ‘‘over all,’’ or the Su- 
preme Being, and ‘‘God,’’ who is ‘‘blessed forever.’’ This is 
a clear affirmation that Christ is God, which was written to 
show that Jesus was not merely human. The last three words 
‘‘God blessed forever’’ can not properly be regarded as a doxolo- 
oy, aS is done by Socinian and Arian writers, because according 
to the universal usage of the New Testament writers it should 
then read, ‘‘Blessed be God forever,’’ which reading is inad- 
missible. Another reason why it can not properly be regarded 
as a doxology is that if God were the subject, as it would be if 
this were a doxology, then the article should be used with it 
in the original, which is not done. 

(2) Christ is called Jehovah.—The name ‘‘Jehovah’’ is the 
highest and most distinctive name of the true God. It repre- 
sents God as being the self-existing One. It is the name of 
himself God gave to Moses at the burning bush, and is com- 
monly translated ‘‘Lord’’ in the English Authorized Version, 
but in the Revised Version is rendered ‘‘Jehovah.’’ ‘‘And 
God spake unto Moses and said unto him, I am the Lord: and 
I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the 
name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not 


THE DIVINE TRINITY 219 


known to them’’ (Exod. 6:2, 3). It is an appropriate name for 
the Deity in that it expresses his attributes of eternity and 
immutability. But this name is used, not only of the Father, 
but also of Christ, showing he is divine in the highest sense. 

‘‘Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will raise 
unto David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and 
deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the 
land. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell 
safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be ealled: 
Jehovah our righteousness’’ (Jer. 23:5, 6, A. S. V.). Certainly 
this righteous Branch of David who was to save God’s people 
and who was to be their righteousness can be no other than 
Christ. And he is called Jehovah. 

‘‘As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my mes- 
senger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 
The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way 
of the Lord, make his paths straight’’ (Matt. 1:2, 3). In Matt. 
11:10 Jesus clearly states that this messenger and the voice in 
the wilderness was John the Baptist. He was the forerunner 
who prepared the way before Christ. This much is certain. The 
latter part of Mark’s quotation is from Isaiah where the proph- 
et said, ‘‘Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of Jehovah’’ 
(Isa. 40:3, A. S. V.). From this it is certain that John the 
Baptist prepared the way before Christ, and that Christ is 
ealled Jehovah: The first part of Mark’s quotation is from Mal. 
3:1 where ‘‘Jehovah’’ says his messenger, John the Baptist, 
‘‘shall prepare the way before me.’’ Then Jehovah must be 
Christ, or Christ must be called Jehovah. 

2. Divine Attributes of Christ.—Certain characteristics, perfec- 
tions without limitation, from their very nature can properly be 
attributed only to God. Yet such divine attributes are very 
often aseribed to Christ in the Bible either by positive affirma- 
tion or by implication. Therefore Christ must be divine in the 
highest sense of the term. 

(1) Eternity.‘ Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say 
unto you, Before Abraham was, I am’’ (John 8:58). No lan- 
guage could be used that would more clearly teach that eternity 
is an attribute of Christ. It does not merely teach preexist- 
ence of Christ, that he existed before his incarnation and even 
before Abraham. If this were all that Jesus meant he would 


220 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


have said, ‘‘ Before Abraham was, I was.’’ But he uses ‘‘I am”’ 
to show the Jews that he was not only fifty years old, which they 
denied ; that he had not only seen Abraham, which they question- 
ed; but that he is eternal. He described his eternity in words simi- 
lar to those in which God affirmed his self-existent and eternal 
nature in speaking to Moses at the burning bush. The Socinian 
eloss, intended to evade the force of this text, which reads, 
‘‘Before Abraham existed, I existed in the purpose and plan of 
God,’’ is undeserving of notice. 

‘‘In the beginning was the Word. ... The same was in the 
beginning with God. All things were made by him; and with- 
out him was not anything made that was made’’ (John 1:1-3). 
This text not only states that Christ existed prior to his in- 
carnation, but it states that he is eternal. He is not said to 
have begun to be in the beginning, but that then he ‘‘was’’ 
already existing. He is described as creator of all things made; 
therefore he did not begin to be, else he created himself. Socin- 
ians have paraphrased this text to read, ‘‘In the beginning of 
Christ’s ministry he was; his sentiments, sympathies, and pur- 
poses were with God—were accordant with the divine will; and 
he was God to his church.’’ But such a superfluous truism as this 
makes of the first clause is unworthy of the inspired writer. An- 
other statement from the same Scripture writer plainly speaks 
of Christ as eternal. ‘‘That which was from the beginning, 
which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which 
we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word 
of life; (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and 
bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with 
the Father, and was manifested unto us)’’ (1 John 1:1, 2). ‘‘I 
am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the 
Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the 
Almighty’’ (Rev. 1:8). 

(2) Immutability. ‘‘Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and 
today, and forever’’ (Heb. 13:8). No language could more 
clearly affirm unchangeableness of Christ. He is immutable 
as is the Father in the perfection of his nature and divine 
-personality. In all the mutations incident to his incarnation he 
was unchangeable in this respect. 

(3) Omnipresence. ‘‘And Jesus came and spake unto them, 
saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go 


THE DIVINE TRINITY 221 


ye therefore, and teach all nations .. . and, lo, I am with you 
alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen’’ (Matt. 28: 
18-20). The promise of his presence with his disciples in con- 
nection with the command of Jesus to evangelize all nations 
was doubtless for their encouragement. He would be with them 
to assist them wherever they went. This implies omnipresence 
on the part of Jesus. The same divine attribute must be under- 
stood as being implied in his ‘‘upholding all things by the word 
of his power’’ (Heb. 1:3). A text even more definite, if pos- 
sible, concerning the omnipresence of Christ is that in Matt. 
18: 20—‘‘For where two or three are gathered together in my 
name, there am I in the midst of them.’’ From the context it is 
certain Christ here means he is omnipresent as God has been 
shown to be omnipresent. He is present in every local assembly 
of his people, according to this text, to hear and answer their 
prayers, and to exercise government. In this very real sense 
Christ is the head of his church. He is present everywhere in 
that very practical sense of power to know and to do. Omni- 
presence is also implied in the words, ‘‘The Son of man which is 
in heaven’’ (John 3:13). These words were spoken while he 
was incarnate on earth. Even then he was potentially omni- 
present in his range of knowledge and action. He healed the 
nobleman’s son who was twenty-five miles distant, and knew of 
the death of Lazarus at Bethany while he was still beyond the 
Jordan. Such a potential omnipresence is the only sense in 
which God may be certainly proved to be ubiquitous. There- 
fore Christ is equal with the Father in this attribute. 

(4) Omniscience.—The attributes of eternity and omnipres- 
ence necessarily imply omniscience in Christ in the fullest sense 
as they do in the Father. Unlimited knowledge in Christ is also 
necessarily implied in his relation as the final judge of all men. 
Only an omniscient person is fitted justly to judge the world. 
The Scriptures usually represent his omniscience as knowledge 
of men’s inmost thoughts, which is possible only to God and 
which implies a knowledge of all things. ‘‘Lord, thou knowest 
all things; thou knowest that I love thee’’ (John 21:17). ‘‘Now 
we are sure that thou knowest all things’’ (John 16:30). He is 
frequently spoken of as ‘‘perceiving the thoughts’’ of persons 
and as ‘‘knowing what is in man.’’ Also Jesus said, ‘‘As the 
Father knoweth me, even so know I the father’’ (John 10:15). 


222 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Only an omniscient being could possibly know the infinite Father 
as that omniscient Father knows him. 

One text seems to be contradictory to the foregoing proofs 
of the omniscience of Christ. ‘‘But of that day and that hour 
knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither 
the Son, but the Father’’ (Mark 13:32). This is the strongest 
antitrinitarian text in all the Bible. But one lone text ought not 
to be so interpreted as to contradict many others equally clear 
and the whole tenor of Scripture. We should enquire then, is it 
capable of an interpretation in harmony with these many other 
texts that clearly teach Christ’s divinity? The genuineness of 
the text has been questioned, but not disproved. The most com- 
mon method of interpreting it by Trinitarian writers is to say 
that as man he did not know the time referred to, but as God he 
did know it. Such a distinction has been made between the 
divine and human consciousness in Christ in explanation of this 
text from Athanasius and the fathers before him to the present 
time. Possibly it is a proper exegesis of the text. If so then it 
must be protected against the Nestorian error of denying the 
unity of the human and divine natures in one person. Because 
of a failure to understand the text in the Trinitarian sense it 
should not be interpreted contradictory to all the sure Bible 
proofs of the Trinity. 

(5) Ommipotence. That Christ was possessed of the attri- 
bute of almightiness is evident from the miraculous works of 
power recorded of him. These are so numerous it is needless 
to cite particular examples. 

3. Divine Works of Christ—Some works are of such a nature 
that they peculiarly belong to the Divine Being. If the Scrip- 
tures clearly represent these as being performed by Christ, then 
we must admit he is divine. 

(1) Creation. No work is more truly the work of God than 
creation. Only God can be the creator of all things. In its nature 
it requires the divine attributes of eternity and omnipotence. But 
Christ is said to be creator of all things. ‘‘ All things were made 
by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. 
. . . He was in the world, and the world was made by him’’ 
(John 1:3,10). ‘‘For by him were all things created, that are 
in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether 
they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all 


THE DIVINE TRINITY 223 


things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all 
things, and by him all things consist’’ (Col. 1:16,17). ‘‘And, 
thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the 
earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands’’ (Heb. 
1:10). All these texts clearly attribute creation to Christ. 
Therefore Christ is God. Yet he is not the Father. The doc- 
trine of the Trinity is the only theory by which these facts can 
be harmonized. Conservation of all things, another divine work, 
is also attributed to him. ‘‘Upholding all things by the word 
of his power’’ (Heb. 1:3). 

(2) Pardon of sin and final judgment. ‘‘And when he saw 
their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. 
And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who 
is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who ean forgive sins, but 
God alone? But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he an- 
swering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts? Wheth- 
er is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up 
and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath 
power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the 
palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go 
into thine house’’ (Luke 5: 20-24). In the nature of things 
only the one against whom sin is committed is qualified to pardon 
that wrong-doing. Jesus could consistently forgive moral trans- 
gression against God only on the ground that he was God. The 
Pharisees were right in their question ‘‘Who can forgive sin, 
but God alone?’’ Their error, like that of modern Unitarians, 
was in disallowing that Jesus is divine. 

Christ will also be the judge of all men in the last day. ‘‘For 
we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ’’ (2 Cor. 
5:10). See also Matt. 25: 31-46 and John 5: 22,27. Only one 
possessing full knowledge of every moral act and thought, and 
also a perfect knowledge of men’s motives and just deserts for 
all, can justly judge the world. Only God possesses such knowl- 
edge, which amounts practically to omniscience. Therefore Christ 
is God. 

4. The Worship of Christ—The Scriptures everywhere repre- 
sent God alone as being the proper object of worship, and con- 
demn the worship of all others most severely as idolatry. But 
Christ is described in the Bible as being worshiped with his 


224 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


approval and even by divine injunction. Therefore he is God, 
else Christianity supports rank idolatry. 

‘‘When he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he 
saith, And let all the angels of God worship him’’ (Heb. 1:6). 
This text plainly demands the worship of Christ by angels in 
heaven. If he is a proper object of worship for them, he is also 
for us. But unless he is divine such worship would be idolatry. 
‘“All men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father’’ 
(John 5:23). No higher honor can be accorded to the Father 
than divine worship. Jesus here unmistakably teaches we should 
honor the Son in the same degree, which means necessarily that 
we worship him as God. | 

Christ was worshiped by men full of the Holy Spirit who 
knew the truth. ‘‘And they stoned Stephen, calling upon the 
Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. . .. Lay not 
this sin to their charge’’ (Acts 7:59, 60, A.S.V.). These are 
the words of the dying Stephen in the hour of his martyrdom, of 
whom it is specifically stated that at that time he was ‘‘full of 
the Holy Ghost’’ (v.55), and is elsewhere described as a man 
of wisdom. We know he was one of the foremost preachers of 
the early church. He could not have been in error in this 
prayer. Yet he addressed his prayer and committed his soul to 
Christ, not the Father. Such prayer and worship as this ig due 
only to God. If Christ be not God, then Stephen’s dying prayer 
was not a whit above Mariolatry or idolatry. Worship and 
prayer to Christ was common to the apostles and early Christians. 
‘‘Unto the church of God which is at Corinth . . . with all that 
in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord’’ 
(1 Cor. 1:2). ‘‘Then they that were in the ship came and 
worshiped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God’’ 
(Matt. 14:33). The man born blind whose eyes Jesus opened 
said, ‘‘Lord, I believe. And he worshiped him’’ (John 9:38). 
And Jesus allowed their worship of him, which he certainly 
could not have done if it were idolatry. Of his thorn in the 
flesh, Paul said, ‘*‘ For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that 
it might depart from me’’ (2 Cor. 12:8). The one to whom he 
prayed answered, ‘‘My grace is sufficient for thee’’ (v.9). Then 
Paul said, ‘‘ Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my in- 
firmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.’’ Inasmuch 
as the one to whom Paul prayed gave him his power to endure 


THE DIVINE TRINITY 225 


this suffering and that power was the ‘‘power of Christ,’’ then 
Paul prayed to Christ. This worshipfulness of Christ is evi- 
dence that he is God. 


IV. The Personality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit 


The third person of the divine Trinity igs variously named 
‘‘the Holy Spirit,’’ ‘‘the Spirit of God,’’ ‘‘the Spirit,’’ when 
reference has been made to God ‘‘his Spirit,’’ and when God 
speaks ‘‘my Spirit.’’ His being designated Spirit is for the 
purpose, doubtless, of representing his relationship to the Trin- 
ity. As the Son is called the Word because he is the revealer 
of God, so the third person in the Godhead is called Spirit be- 
cause he is the one who is especially the power or worker in the 
Godhead in effecting men’s redemption. Christ atones for sin, 
but the Spirit convicts, regenerates, witnesses, and teaches. 
Among the early Christians as with many devout Christians at 
the present, the truth concerning the Holy Spirit was held as it 
appears on the surface of the Scriptures without any attempt 
at harmonizing or formulating the doctrine. It was only when 
the church was confronted by the rise of heresies concerning the 
Trinity that the doctrine was carefully formulated and given 
exact expression. The two points of special importance in the 
doctrine of the Holy Spirit are his personality and divinity. 
Only Unitarians deny his divinity, but sometimes Trinitarians, 
who theoretically hold his personality, in their common thought 
regard him as a mere power or influence because of confusing 
in their minds his operations and his personality. Both his 
personality and divinity are essential elements of the Trinitarian 
doctrine. 

1. Personality of the Spirit—A person is a being possessed of 
intelligence, will, and individual existence who can say I, thou, 
he, me, my, mine. The Holy Spirit may be said to be a person 
because of his possessing these characteristics. Proof of his 
personality does not require that evidence be given of his having 
each of these several qualities. All may often be included in a 
single proof. 

His personality is shown by the use concerning him of the 
personal pronoun. When he speaks he says ‘‘I.’’ ‘‘ When he is 
spoken to ‘‘thou’’ is used. When he is spoken of ‘‘he”’ or ‘‘him”’ 
is used. Such usage clearly implies personality. It is true that 


226 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


inanimate things are sometimes personified, but such personifi- 
cation is a mere figure of speech and except in very rare cases iS 
evident, and in view of the facts creates no difficulty in this 
argument. ‘‘Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work 
whereunto J have called them’’ (Acts 13:2). Here the Spirit 
uses the pronoun of the first person of himself. ‘‘But when the 
Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, 
even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he 
shall testify of me’’ (John 15:26). ‘‘Howbeit when he, the 
Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he 
shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that 
shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall 
glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto 
you’’ (John 16: 13,14). Here in three verses the pronoun of the 
third person is used of the Holy Spirit nine times. 

His personality is shown by his being associated with other 
persons of the Trinity. In the baptismal formula we are taught 
to acknowledge the Spirit as we do the Father and the Son. We 
are baptized in his name as in the names of them. Here the 
personality of the Father and Son are beyond question. No more 
reason exists for denying personality to the Spirit. It can not 
be supposed we are to baptize in the name of the Father and also 
in the name of an indefinite form of his power. When the 
Apostle tells the Corinthians they were not baptized in the 
name of Paul, he means they were not made his disciples. In 
the same sense to be baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit is to 
acknowledge ourselves his disciples. And it is not to be supposed 
we are disciples of an impersonal energy. Also in the apostolic 
benediction (2 Cor. 13:14) the Holy Spirit is associated with the 
other members of the Trinity as a person among persons with an 
earnest prayer for his communion which ig possible only to a 
person. 

Especially is the personality of the Spirit shown by the as- 
eription to him of personal acts. ‘‘The Holy Ghost said, Sepa- 
rate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have 
called them. . . . So they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, 
departed unto Seleucia’’ (Acts 18:2-4). Unless these words 
mean more than that these brethren at Antioch felt impressed 
that these two men were suitable for the work suggested, then 
they are misleading. How the Spirit spoke we do not know, but 


THE DIVINE TRINITY 227 


that he spoke and that his message was definite is clearly 
affirmed. It is plainly the act of a person described here. ‘‘ But 
Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to 
the Holy Ghost’’ (Acts 5:3). It is not possible to lie to a power 
or a mere influence, but only to a person. ‘‘The Spirit itself 
maketh intercession for us with groanings which ean not be 
uttered’’ (Rom. 8:26). Only a person can thus intercede, espe- 
cially with such intensity of feeling. Other works ascribed to the 
Spirit might be mentioned that constitute conclusive proof of his 
personality. He may be grieved (Eph. 4:30); despited (Heb. 
10:29); he reproves (John 14:13); teaches (Luke 12:12); 
witnesses (Rom. 8:16); comforts (John 14:16); guides and 
predicts future events (John 16:18); regenerates (John 8:5), 
and sanctifies (Rom. 15:16). 

2. Divinity of the Holy Spirit—As the vital truth concerning 
Christ is his divinity, so is the proof of personality concerning the 
Spirit important to the doctrine of the Trinity. When these are 
admitted the divinity of the Holy Spirit is usually accepted. 
Yet to fill out and strengthen the argument for the Trinity it is 
well also to give proof of this. 

The Holy Spirit is often called God. ‘‘Know ye not that ye 
are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in 
you?’’ (1 Cor. 3:16). Because the Spirit of God dwells in 
men they are here said to be the temple of God, which implies 
that he is God. ‘‘But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled 
thine heart to le to the Holy Ghost? Thou hast not lied unto 
men, but unto God”’ (Acts 5:3,4). If lying to the Holy Ghost 
is lying to God, then the Holy Ghost is God. The apostle Paul 
says in Acts 28: 25, ‘‘ Well spoke the Holy Ghost by Esaias the 
prophet,’’ and gives a quotation from Isa. 6:9 where the words 
are said to be those of Jehovah. The fact that the Holy Ghost 
is Jehovah is similarly shown also by a comparison of Heb, 10: 
15 with Jer. 31: 31, 33, 34. 

The Holy Spirit is also shown by the Bible to be possessed 
of various divine attributes. ‘‘How much more shall the blood 
of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without 
spot to God’’ (Heb. 9:14). Only God is eternal; therefore the 
Spirit is God. The Holy Spirit is said to be omnipresent in 
that notable text in Psa. 189: 7 which begins, ‘‘ Whither shall I 
go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence ?’’ 


228 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


His omniscience is declared by the apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 2:10, 
11 where he says the Spirit knows all things, ‘‘yea, the deep 
things of God.’’ He is said to know the things of God as the 
spirit of a man knows the things of the man. A proof of the 
divinity of the Holy Spirit is also found in the declaration that 
blasphemy against the Father or Son may be forgiven, but if it is 
against the Holy Spirit it may not be forgiven (Matt. 12:31). 
Certainly a dignity so exalted can not be his except he is 
God. 

The Holy Ghost is also recognized as God by the ascription of 
divine works to him. He operated in the creation of the world 
(Gen. 1:2). He inspired the writing of the Word of God; there- 
fore he must be God. ‘‘For the prophecy came not in old time 
by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were 
moved by the Holy Ghost’’ (2 Peter 1:21). 

The Holy Spirit is not so commonly set forth in the Seriptures 
as an object of worship as is the Son, yet his worshipfulness is 
implied in the proofs that he is God, especially in such texts as 
those that warn against the danger of blaspheming him. What 
has been said is sufficient evidence that inasmuch as he is of the 
same substance as the Father and Son he is therefore equal 
with them in power and glory. But as the Son is subordinate 
to the Father in the mode of his subsistence and operations in 
the world, so is the Holy Spirit represented as subordinate to 
both the Father and Son in that he proceeds from or is of the 
same substance with them and is sent by them to men. 

3. Procession of the Spirit—The doctrine concerning the Holy 
Spirit and especially as to his relation to the other persons of 
the Trinity was very confused prior to the Council of Nicea. 
The church generally held the facts concerning him that are re- 
vealed on the surface of the Scriptures, but those who attempted 
to harmonize those facts often went far astray. The statement 
of faith formulated by the Nicene Council only repeated what 
was before stated in the Apostle’s Creed, which merely said, ‘‘I 
believe in the Holy Ghost.’’ As a remedy for the continued con- 
fusion the Council of Constantinople, which met in 381 A. D., 
added to the earlier creed, ‘‘I believe in the Holy Ghost, the 
divine, the life-giving, who proceedeth from the Father, who is 
to be worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son, and 


THE DIVINE TRINITY 229 


who spake through the prophets.’’ The later creed, the Athan- 
asian, states that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father 
and Son; that He is uncreated, eternal, and omnipotent, equal in 
majesty and glory; and that He proceeds from the Father and 
the Son. The Athanasian symbol includes two elements not 
found in the Constantinopolitan—that the Spirit is consubstan- 
tial with the Father and also the Spirit is said to proceed, not 
only from the Father, but also from the Son. At the Synod 
of Toledo in 589 the Constantinopolitan creed was amended by 
the addition of the word Filioque, ‘‘And the Son.’’ The contro- 
versy resulting from the addition of this word was one of the 
principal causes that led to the separation of the church into 
the Greek and Roman divisions. The Athanasian creed repre- 
sents the doctrine of the large portion of Christians ever since 
its formulation and is the faith of evangelical Christians today. 

By the procession of the Spirit is meant the mode of his 
subsistence in relation to the Godhead. The Spirit’s procession is 
an inscrutable mystery, as is the idea of the Trinity. 

The Scriptures clearly affirm the procession of the Spirit 
from the Father. ‘‘But when the Comforter is come, whom I will 
send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which 
proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me’’ (John 15: 
26). It need not necessarily be understood that the sense of the 
term ‘‘proceedeth’’ as used here implies more than that the 
Spirit is sent from the Father to believers, but evangelical 
Christians of both the past and the present have commonly 
interpreted it to describe his mode of subsistence in the Godhead. 
_ But apart from what may be the true sense of this particular 
- text this relationship of the Spirit to the Father called proces- 
sion is a necessary and eternal one. If it were by an optional 
act of the Father, then the Spirit would not be eternal and there- 
fore not God. Arianism would make Christ a creature of the 
Father and the Spirit creation by Christ, but the true doctrine 
of the Trinity can admit nothing less than the eternity of them 
both. To say the Spirit proceeds from the Father is merely to 
say that he is of the same essence with the Father. 

The procession of the Spirit from the Son also is not explicitly 
stated in the Scriptures. Yet it may be clearly inferred much 
in the same sense as is the Trinity itself. The relationship of 
the Spirit to the Son is the same as that to the Father. He is 


230 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


not only ealled the Spirit of God, but also the Spirit of Christ. 
(Rom. 8:9). If the Trinitarian doctrine is true that he is not 
the Spirit of God in that he is related to God as a man’s spirit 
is related to the man, but is only such in that he proceeds from 
the Father, then he must be the Spirit of Christ in the same 
sense. Thus the Seriptures support the statement of the Athan- 
asian symbol that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the 
Son. Also the procession of the Spirit from the Son is a logical 
requirement on the ground that the Father and the Son are of 
the same essence. Again, it may be reasoned that because 
Christ as well as the Father sends, or pours out the Spirit on 
men, thus showing the Spirit’s relation to both, the ground for 
such relation is in his proceeding from them both. 


Chapter III 
THE WORKS OF GOD 


I. God’s Work in Creation 


The minds of men have always been exercised with the ques- 
tion of the origin of the universe. The universe is either eternal 
or else it began to be. Constant change in existing things is 
evidence that at least in its present form it is not eternal, but 
had a beginning. This is generally admitted. Plato as- 
sumed matter was self-existent or eternal, and that God used it to 
construct the cosmos. Aristotle held eternity, not only of this 
matter, but also of its present orderly form. Pantheists identify 
God with matter and regard it as eternal and that by its power of 
self-action present things have been formed. Other theories have 
been advanced that attribute intelligence and self-action to 
nature itself. Another class of theories are those that attribute 
the universe to purely physical, non-intelligent forces. An ex- 
ample of this class is the naturalistic theory of evolution of all 
things from a primitive nebula, All these pantheistic and natu- 
ralistic theories of creation are atheistic and were sufficiently re- 
futed under theism. Human reasoning has struggled in vain 
with the problem of the origin of the world. Only in Revelation 
is it set in a clear light. The prevalence of the idea, if not the 
original conception, of the creation of the world out of nothing 
is due to the Bible, which clearly teaches that God created the 
universe out of nothing. 

For clearness in thought it is important to distinguish be- 
tween the several spheres of creative work. (1) Matter may be 
thought of as having been created and as existing independent of 
any orderly form of it. Matter and its properties are distinct 
only for abstract thought, but the existence of matter and its 
arrangement in orderly forms is an actual distinction. A chaotic 
state of matter is conceivable. It is possible to think of the 
matter which now composes the physical universe as having once 
existed in a shapeless mass. The Bible states that the time was 
when matter did so exist. ‘‘The earth was without form, and 
void’’ (Gen. 1:2). This distinction between the existence of 
chaotic matter and the cosmos is important for the purpose of 


showing that even though it could be proved that matter were 
231 


232 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


eternal, it would not therefore follow that the cosmos or the 
orderly arrangement of nature is eternal, nor its naturalistic 
development a necessary consequence. (2) We may also con- 
ceive of the formation of preexistent matter into orderly arrange- 
ment in the shape of a sphere, with its various distinct substances, 
continents, seas, atmosphere, clouds, mountains, and strata. Such 
order is conceivable apart from the existence of any form of 
life. (38) The origin of all organic nature including plant and 
animal life is thinkable as having originated subsequently to mat- 
ter and inorganic forms. (4) Still another distinct sphere of 
creative work is in the origination of mind. In its nature, its 
qualities, and the possibility of knowing it only through phe- 
nomena it is clearly distinguishable and altogether different 
from matter. Such distinctions are made in the Bible and the 
recognition of them is important to its proper interpretation. 

1. Matter Created Out of Nothing.—Not only in theology, but 
also in science and philosophy the question of the eternity of 
matter has ever been a source of conflicting views. Theological 
thought is not rationally limited to the creation of matter from 
nothing. The theistic argument is equally strong whether we 
reason that a divine person is necessary to the creation of the 
cosmos out of nothing, or whether we assume the eternity of mat- 
ter and reason that he is required to change it into an orderly 
universe. 

Only on the grounds of the Scriptures can we certainly know 
the truth concerning this subject. It has not infrequently been 
reasoned that to admit the eternity of matter would be to limit 
God in such a sense that he would not be the absolute, and that 
if matter were eternal it would be independent of him and be 
another God. But equally able thinkers do not regard such 
reasoning as conclusive against the possibility of both God’s 
absoluteness and the eternity of matter. 

Science has also failed to give any clear light on the question 
under consideration. It has no sure data determinative of the 
question, and probably the sphere of science is such that it 
should not be expected to provide such data. Sir John Herschel 
and Professor Clerk Maxwell endeavor to prove that matter has 
been created by showing that the atoms of matter bear marks of 
being ‘‘manufactured articles.’’ Maxwell says, ‘‘The exact 
equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind giveg it 


THE WORKS OF GOD 233 


the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes 
the idea of its being eternal and self-existent.’’ But inasmuch 
as there is no general concurrence of scientific authorities regard- 
ing this subject and especially in consideration of the fact that 
the present form of the molecules and atoms may be regarded 
as the molding of God out of preexistent but divinely created 
matter it may well be assumed that science furnishes no light 
elther for or against the origin of matter. 

Turning to the Bible, we find proof of the creation of matter 
out of nothing, but that proof is not of a philological nature as is 
sometimes supposed. Various Hebrew words in the Old Testa- 
ment and Greek words in the New are used indiscriminately to 
express originative creation out of nothing and to form out 
of existing matter. In this respect they are similar to the Eng- 
lish terms create, make, or do. The Bible proof of an originative 
creation of matter is to be found in the connections in which 
these words are used. The first Biblical use of the term trans- 
lated ‘‘create’’ is as follows: ‘‘In the beginning God created the 
heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and 
void’’ (Gen. 1:1,2). From this second verse we learn that at 
one time the earth was formless and empty. It was a shapeless 
mass of matter that had not been arranged in any orderly form. 
But the preceding verse affirms that creation had already taken 
place. This took place in the ‘‘beginning,’’ which doubtless 
means the beginning of time. Time began with the origin of 
that which is not eternal. Therefore the origin of matter must 
mark the beginning of time. It should be noted that the form- 
less and void condition of the earth was not before, but at or 
after it was created. ‘‘Create’’ as used in the first verse could 
not refer to the orderly arrangement of matter which is said in 
verse two not yet to have taken place, but must refer to the 
creation of matter out of nothing. That verse two is a continua- 
tion of the history of verse one and not the beginning of a new 
history is implied in the conjunction at the beginning of the 
second verse translated ‘‘and.’’ Hebrew scholars state that this 
word is never used to begin a new history. 

It is said of God in Rom. 4:17 that he ‘‘calleth those things 
which be not as though they were.’’ To ‘‘call’’ as here used may 
be understood in the sense of commanding or controlling things 
that are not, which would imply the actual origination of them. 


234 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Or it may mean, according to Dewette, that God ‘‘calls the non- 
existing into existence.’’ <A clearer statement of creation out 
of nothing could scarcely be made than that given in Heb. 11:3: 
‘“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by 
the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of 
things which do appear.’’ Here it is declared that the world we 
now see was created by God, but not from materials that appear 
or that may be seen. It is equal to saying it was created out of 
nothing. 

Not only in these positive statements do we have evidence 
that matter began to be, but also in the silence of the Sacred 
Record concerning the eternity of matter. A still further evi- 
dence is the common Bible distinction between God’s eternity 
and the temporariness of all other existences. 

2. Creative Work Not Necessary to God.—The theory has not 
been uncommonly held that the nature of God is such that 
creation was necessary by him. It has been reasoned that as con- 
sciousness in a human being arises only through sensation which 
is dependent upon the external or that which is not self, so 
God could come to consciousness only by originating other ex- 
istences. In objection to such reasoning for the necessity of 
creation, it may be said that it implies a contradiction in that 
it makes God create for the purpose of gaining for himself 
self-consciousness. But self-consciousness is necessary to such 
purposing. If God became conscious through creating the world, 
he could not have been conscious when he did it. If he were not 
then conscious there would have been no such thing as design in 
erzation. The marks of design in nature are opposed to this 
argument for necessitated creation. Also even if human con- 
sciousness is developed only by sensation, it does not follow that 
a purely spiritual incorporeal being whether created or divine 
is likewise dependent upon sensation and objective existence for 
consciousness. 

It is further reasoned that the plenitude of the divine nature 
is such that it must necessarily overflow in creating other ex- 
istences. If this were true then there must necessarily have 
been an eternal overflow in creative work and created existences 
must be eternal and infinite. But evidence is abundant that 
nature is temporal. Again it is held there is a moral necessity 
with God to create. It is held that because God is love, and 


THE WORKS OF GOD 235 


it is the nature of love to long to communicate itself and to make 
others happy, therefore he must necessarily create other beings. 
In objection it may be said that then he must have had that 
necessity from eternity and so his creation must be eternal and 
infinite in extant. But such is not found to be true. 

The common faith of Christians is that God was free in creat- 
ing. Freedom is implhed in personality, and creation is the work 
of a person. In his infinite wisdom he created the universe for 
his glory. | 

3. The Genesis Record Historical—The Mosaic narrative of 
creation avoids the mistake of stating the universe is eternal. 
Also it does not commit the error common to pagan cosmogonies 
of assigning for the world a pantheistic origin. It begins with 
a personal, supreme God who originates matter and then later 
out of that material by progressive stages develops the cosmos. 
The Mosaic record of creation is far superior to all pagan cos- 
mogonies, differing from them as widely as does truth from fic- 
tion. But the first step necessary to an understanding of the 
Bible teaching concerning creation is to inquire concerning the 
historic character of the Genesis narrative. There are different 
views concerning its interpretation. (1) It is regarded as being 
a true literal history. This has been and is at present the com- 
mon method of interpretation among Christians. (2) It is said 
to be poetical in its nature and therefore not a veritable history 
of actual events. (3) It is assumed to be an allegory, either 
with or without a historical meaning also. (4) A modern tend- 
ency is to regard it as being only a myth or fable similar to and 
of no more historical value than similar cosmogonies that are 
found in the early literature of all nations. 

That the first chapter of Genesis is not a mere unhistorical, 
poetic outburst is evident from the narrative itself. It lacks 
almost all the elements of Hebrew poetry. It is true that nearly 
one third of the Old Testament is poetry. Poetry is found especi- 
ally in the prophetical portions. There is rhythm in parallelism 
of thoughts and other distinctive characteristics of Hebrew 
poetry. But no more straightforward prose narrative can be 
found in all the Bible than this record of creation. It is not 
printed in poetical form in the Revised Version. But even if it 
could be shown to be poetry would this prove it is not a true 
historical record? Is poetry to be confounded with fiction? Or 


236 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


are they synonymous? Much of the Psalms is historical. See 
Psalms 136. Nor can better reasons be given for supposing it is 
to be interpreted allegorically. The parables and other symbolic 
descriptions of the Scriptures are in such a style and so clearly 
such that little difficulty is experienced in recognizing them as 
symbolic. But here we have not so much as a single hint that 
the narrative is intended to be other than a plain historical 
account. 

The best argument against the poetical and allegorical as 
well as the mythical theory of interpretation is the positive 
proofs that the narrative is historical. The first reason for ac- 
cepting this portion of Scripture as history is that it purports to 
be such. A second reason is that it is a part of an acknowledged 
historical writing and is a proper and necessary introduction 
to that history. A third reason is that in every reference to it 
by Jesus, his apostles, or other inspired writers it 1s always re- 
oarded as a credible record of the creation. A fourth reason for 
believing the Mosaic creation narrative is historic in character 
is the fact that the account there given of the creation, probation, 
and fall of man is made the basis of the entire scheme of redemp- 
tion through Christ. The facts there recorded are the foundation 
of all the Bible. 

The supreme interest of the creation narrative is not scien- 
tific, but religious. It is in this respect in harmony with the 
great purpose of the Bible as a whole. Yet the dominance of the 
religious element should not be supposed to exclude a statement 
of essential facts from the narrative. Nothing could more cer- 
tainly represent the greatness and infinite power of God than the 
simple record of the facts of creation. It is true it could not 
have been given otherwise than according to popular concep- 
tions in that unscientific age, but a statement may be essentially 
true though not given in scientific terms. Even in a scientific 
age it is not thought to be incorrect to speak of the rising and 
setting of the sun. Neither does the historic nature of the record 
require that we suppose the human writer had a full compre- 
hension of the creative process. It is enough that the Inspiring 
Spirit knew this. May not Moses have written that which con- 
tained a meaning far beyond what he thought, as was evidently 
true of those who prophesied of Christ and his salvation and 


THE WORKS OF GOD 237 


then studied their own writings to learn more about the subject? 
el Peter) li-11), 

4, Creation Days and Geologic Periods— With the develop- 
ment of the science of geology or since the beginning of the 
last century the interpreter of the Biblical record of creation 
has had a new factor to take into consideration—the harmoniz- 
ing of the Bible narrative with the findings of geology. Geology 
claims the strata of the earth were built up by a process that 
occupied a vast period of time—which has been variously esti- 
mated at from 25,000,000, to 1,600,000,000 years. The principal 
question that confronts the Biblical exegete is, can the Scripture 
record be reconciled with such a time-period and process. Those 
who are unsympathetic toward the science of geology or who 
have not given attention to its study endeavor to answer the 
question by denying the claims of geology. Whatever liberty 
one may properly claim for himself in taking such a position, 
it is certain that such an attitude on the part of friends of the 
Bible is not conducive to acceptance of its teaching by those 
who do accept the views of geology, which they believe are well 
supported by clearly ascertained facts. It is a distinct advant- 
age to religion to show, if it can be done, that the Bible narra- 
tive is not inconsistent with the claims of science. It is improper 
to debar the student of science from faith in the inspired record 
by hedging it around with human interpretations that are not 
required by internal facts of the Bible. And it is never right so 
to interpret the Bible that it contradicts certainly known facts 
of nature. 

Truth is always consistent with itself. Truth in the Bible 
never contradicts truth in nature. God is the author of both. 
And as the man of science errs in advancing unproved theories 
that are opposed to the plain statements of the Scriptures, so also 
does the theologian err who refuses to regard the facts of science 
in interpreting the Scriptures, as has been too often done. The 
facts of geography were rejected by those doctors of Salamanca 
who considered it unscriptural to hold with Columbus that the 
earth was not flat, but round. Also that great astronomical 
fact that it is the earth that moves in the heavens and the sun 
stands still, was rejected by Francis Turrettine when it was 
set forth by Newton and Galileo. The present-day exegete of 
the Seriptures does well to beware that he does not deny facts of 


238 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


geology in order to make a place for an erroneous interpretation 
of the Bible. It may not be ineumbent upon the theologian to 
furnish the proof of the claims of science, but it is certainly im- 
portant that he take account of those claims to the degree that 
he will point out their agreement with the Scriptures if such 
is possible. 

During the last century three different theories have been 
more or less prevalent for reconciling the Mosaic six days of 
creation with the measureless periods of the geologic cosmogony. 
The first theory advanced was the reconstruction theory by Dr. 
Thomas Chalmers early in the last century. When geologists 
first set forth the idea that the earth did not come into being a 
few thousand years ago as had been not uncommonly assumed 
it was this noted theologian who promptly came forward with 
the statement that the Bible nowhere stated the time of the 
earth’s creation and that if the Bible genealogies proved anything 
it was only the time of the creation of man. Chalmers’ scheme 
of reconciling the Bible and the geologic records assumed that 
vast periods of time intervened between the creative work of the 
first verse of Genesis 1 and what followed in the chapter. He 
supposed that Gen. 1:1 describes a creation of orderly nature 
with many forms of plant and animal life, and that this con- 
tinued for countless ages during which the geologic formations 
took place. The theory further supposes these geologic periods 
were followed by a chaotic period when such conditions developed 
that all life on the face of the earth became extinct and at least 
there if not in the heavens darkness and chaos prevailed. Then 
it is supposed a reconstruction of the cosmos took place as de- 
seribed in Genesis 1, during six literal twenty-four hour days. 

If the geologic facts could be shown to agree with such a 
reconstruction, this theory would satisfactorily reconcile the 
Bible and science at this point. It has not been commonly urged 
that the interior facts of Scripture require such a double crea- 
tion. The advocates of the theory have rather held that the 
second verse of the Bible is so worded that it merely makes a 
place for such a former creation. But such an interpretation 
of this verse appears to be an unnatural one. The history seems 
to be continuous. No such double creation was found there by 
exegetes until they were confronted with the necessity of har- 
monizing the Mosaic narrative with geology. Such an exegesis 


THE WORKS OF GOD 239 


simplifies interpretation relative to the length of the creative 
days, but great difficulties are found in the lack of scientific facts 
to support it. A break at a certain point in the geologic deposits 
of certain parts of the world has been noted, but no general 
chaotic period is to be found in the geologic record. In reference 
to this point the great geologist Hugh Miller, who was himself 
a firm believer in the Bible, says, ‘‘From the present time up to 
the times represented by the earliest Eocene formations of the 
Tertiary division, day has succeeded day, and season has followed 
season, and no chasm or hiatus—no age of general chaos, dark- 
ness, and death—has occurred, to break the line of succession, 
or check the course of life. All the evidence runs counter to the 
supposition that immediately before the appearance of man wpon 
the earth there existed a chaotic period which separated the 
previous from the present creation, (Testimony of the Rocks, 
Dion) 

With the progress of geologic science it became apparent 
that facts did not support the theory of Dr. Chalmers. Twenty- 
five years after the publication of his theory, Dr. Pye Smith 
advanced a scheme of harmonizing the Bible with geology, which 
is really but a modification of the theory of Chalmers. Smith 
held with Chalmers except on the one point of a universal chaos 
and an entirely new creation of life. He supposed the chaotic 
condition was of limited extent. Following the geological ages 
it is assumed that a particular locality, probably in southwestern 
Asia, was submerged and nature there was reduced to chaos, 
while in other parts of the earth life continued in unbroken suc- 
cession even until the present. Then the six days of creation 
described beginning at Gen. 1:2 was of only particular species 
including man and was limited to that local section. 

But whatever may be said in favor of such a theory it is 
confronted with serious difficulties. It has no more internal 
Seriptural support than the first theory. It requires that the 
word ‘‘earth’’ used in Gen. 1:2 and subsequent verses be given 
a very restricted meaning inconsistent with its usage elsewhere. 
By reducing the creation of Moses’ narrative to a mere local re- 
construction it seriously impairs the idea of God’s absoluteness 
which this account of creation is supposed to teach. This theory 
deprives the creation account of its high sublimity. Such a 
theory does not have support in the facts of geology. Hugh 


240 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Miller rejects it on these grounds and says ‘‘it fails to satisfy 
me.”’ 

A third method of reconciling the Mosaic record and geology 
is to regard the six days, not as literal twenty-four hour days, but 
as symbolic days representative of geological ages. Strong 
reasons can be given for such an interpretation. The events of 
creation could not be known to man like the later patriarchal and 
Israelitish history, but only by divine revelation. In this respect 
the account of creation is much of the same nature as is prophecy. 
It might be described as inverted prophecy. The Bible prophe- 
cies, aS in the ‘‘seventy weeks’’ prediction of Dan. 9:24, often 
use a day as a symbol of a longer period of time. May it not 
be then that when God revealed the events of creation to man he 
employed a similar method, possibly by representing the events 
in vision to the seer with periods or days to represent geological 
ages? The most certain interpretation of prophecy is always in 
the light of its fulfilment in history. The best proof that the 
seventy weeks of Daniel are weeks of years rather than of twenty- 
four hour days is the fact that according to history exactly that 
many years elapsed between the events described. It is accepted 
as a sound principle of Biblical interpretation that these proph- 
etic symbols must be interpreted in agreement with the facts of 
history. ‘‘In what light, or on what principle, shall we most 
correctly read the prophetic drama of creation? In the light, I 
reply, of scientific diseovery-—on the principle that the clear and 
certain must be accepted, when attainable, as the proper expon- 
ents of the doubtful and obscure.’’—Hugh Miller. If we employ 
here this common method of interpreting predictions of the 
future, we shall understand these six days in the light of that 
history afforded by the record of the rocks. Those best quali- 
fied to read that record tell us these periods symbolically called 
days were probably millions of years in duration. If they are 
not to be regarded as twenty-four hour days, but symbols of 
long periods, then there is no reason why they can not be re- 
garded as being whatever length geologic findings require. In 
the light of this principle of interpretation it would be as un- 
reasonable to insist that these days were twenty-four hour days 
as to hold that the coming of Christ and other events predicted 
in the ninth chapter of Daniel occurred four hundred and ninety 
days after the going forth of the command to restore and rebuild 


THE WORKS OF GOD 241 


Jerusalem in 457 B. C. As further proof that ‘‘day’’ in the 
creation record does not necessarily mean twenty-four hours, 
observe that the identical period described in Genesis 1 as six 
days is in chapter 2:4 called one day. 

That the six days of the Mosaic narrative are symbolic of 
the geologic periods is the view of the majority of the most 
learned and devout exegetes at present and ig rapidly gaining 
acceptanee with the average Christian. This view is not al- 
together a modern view forced upon interpreters by science. 
Some of the early Christian fathers as Origen, Augustine, and 
Aquinas doubted whether those six days were to be taken in a 
literal sense. To regard the six days as symbolic days, represen- 
tative of the geological periods, is by far the simplest and most 
reasonable method for reconciling Genesis and geology. 

‘‘Day’’ is frequently used in the Scriptures in other senses 
than of the twenty-four hour day. It is sometimes used for a 
year, sometimes for an indefinite period as in the expressions 
‘‘the day of your calamity,’’ ‘‘the day of salvation,’’ or in 
reference to the gospel dispensation, and in Gen. 1:5 it is used 
of the period of light in antithesis to night. In Gen. 2:4 is the 
expression ‘‘in the day that the Lord God made the earth and 
the heavens.’’ If it be objected to regarding these six days as 
long periods on the ground that God rested the seventh day, it 
may be answered that it is altogether consistent with God’s rest 
from his creative work to say that the seventh period in which 
he rested was of great duration, for he is still resting from 
creative work. Instead of the seventh day of the creative week 
being against the idea of long periods it rather supports the idea. 

5. Agreement of Moses and Science.—The first step necessary 
to a reconciliation of the Mosaic record of creation with that 
record written in the rocks of which geologists tell us is to 
harmonize the six days with the geologic time-periods. This 
has been done. But the agreement must be shown, not only in 
the length of time occupied in the creative work, but also in 
the order of events in the process. Here the agreement between 
the Bible and science is remarkable. Not only do eminent 
scientists fail to find any serious contradiction between Moses 
and geology, but they testify to finding a very remarkable cor- 
roboration of the Mosaic account in nature. Some of the very 
ablest scientists have shown this agreement, including such men 


242 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


as James D. Dana, M. A., L. L. D., Professor of Geology and 
Natural History in Yale University; Alexander Winchell, 
eminent as a geologist, a writer on scientific subjects, and profes- 
sor in the University of Michigan; Professor Arnold Guyot of 
Princeton, whom Dana describes as ‘‘a philosopher of enlarged 
comprehension of nature’’; Professor C. H. Hitcheock of Am- 
herst; and the great geologist Hugh Miller, who in his excellent 
work ‘‘ Testimony of the Rocks’’ has shown at length the harmony 
of Genesis and geology. 

Geology affirms that creation was gradual. Genesis most 
clearly teaches the same. Science begins with a disorganized 
condition of matter. Genesis affirms that same formless condi- 
tion of matter in its beginning. An unproved scientific hypoth- 
esis assumes nebula was the primordial form of matter. If 
that theory could be proved it would not necessarily conflict 
with Genesis. The nebular theory conflicts with the Bible only 
when it is coupled with the antitheistic idea that the formation 
of the cosmos from that original nebula was by resident forces 
alone rather than by the divine agency. 

Professor Dana briefly shows the harmony of Genesis and 
veology by a concise statement of the steps in the process of 
creation as shown by each. Assuming that matter was origin- 
ally in a gaseous state, he enumerates the stages as known by 
science as follows: ‘‘(1) Activity begun—light an immediate 
result. (2) The earth made an independent sphere. (3) Out- 
lining of the land and water, determining the earth’s general 
configuration. (4) The idea of life in the lowest plants, and 
afterwards, if not contemporaneously, in the lowest or system- 
less animals, or Protozoans. (95) The energizing lhght of the 
sun shining on the earth—an essential preliminary to the dis- 
play of the systems of life. (6) Introduction of the systems of 
life. (7) Introduction of mammals—the highest order of the 
vertebrates—the class afterwards to be dignified by including a 
being of moral and intellectual nature. (8) Introduction of 
man.’’ ‘‘The order of events in the Seripture cosmogony cor- 
responds essentially with that which has been given. There was 
first a void and formless earth: this was literally true of the 
‘heavens and the earth,’ if they were in the condition of a gas- 
eous fluid. The succession is as follows: (1) Light. (2) The 
dividing of the waters below from the waters above the earth 


THE WORKS OF GOD 243 


(the word translated waters may mean fluid). (3) The divid- 
ing of the land and water on the earth. (4) Vegetation; which 
Moses, appreciating the philosophical characteristic of the new 
creation distinguishing it from previous inorganic substances, 
defines as that ‘which had seed in itself.’ (5) The sun, moon, 
and stars. (6) The lower animals, those that swam in the 
waters, and the creeping and flying species of the land. (7) 
Beasts of prey (‘creeping’ here meaning prowling). (8) Man’’ 
(Manual of Geology, pp. 748, 745). 

A full exhibition of the remarkable agreement of Genesis 
and geology in the details of the process of creation is neither 
possible because of lack of space nor appropriate to a work of 
this nature. Entire volumes have been written by devout and 
eminent scientists describing this harmony. (See Testimony 
of the Rocks, Hugh Miller; Reconciliation of Science and Reli- 
gion, Alexander Winchell; Supplement to Chapter First in 
Kitto’s History of the Bible, written by C. H. Hitchcock.) The 
possibility of such a reconciliation is adequately shown by brief 
veneral statements from those who are of the highest rank as 
scientists. 

Following his comparison of the order of creation as furnished 
by Moses and geology, Professor Dana further says, ‘‘ The record 
in the Bible is therefore profoundly philosophical in the scheme 
of creation which it presents. It is both true and divine. It is 
a declaration of authorship, both of creation and the Bible, on 
the first page of the sacred volume’’ (Manual of Geology, p. 
745). In his chapter on the Mosaic Vision of Creation, Hugh 
Miller says, ‘‘Now, I am greatly mistaken if we have not in 
the six geologic periods all the elements, without misplacement 
or exaggeration, of the Mosaic drama of creation.’’ And in 
closing the chapter he says of the Mosaic narrative, ‘‘I know 
not a single scientific truth that militates against even the minu- 
test or least prominent of its details’’ (Testimony of the Rocks, 
pp. 204, 210). Winchell says, ‘‘The author of Genesis has given 
us an account which, when rightly understood, conforms ad- 
mirably to the indications of latest science’’ (Reconciliation of 
Science and Religion, p. 358). 

With the proof that the Bible is the Word of God it is not 
ineredible that it should harmonize with God’s works in nature. 
The Bible, when properly interpreted, has never been fond to 


244 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


contradict the facts of science. The difficulties of the Biblical 
exegete are not in showing the agreement of the Bible with facts, 
but in harmonizing it with unproved and unprovable scientific 
theories. All the Bible teaches concerning creation wonderfully 
agrees with all the certainly known facts of science. 


II. Creation and Evolution 


1. Evolution Not God’s Method of Creation—No treatment of 
the subject of creation can be complete at the present day that 
fails to give consideration to the claims of the theory of evolu- 
tion. Theistic evolution supposes God’s agency was only mediate 
and that a process of evolution was God’s method in the forma- 
tion of both inorganic and organic nature. EH. D. Cope says, 
‘“The doctrine of evolution may be defined as the teaching which 
holds that creation has been and is accomplished by the agency 
of the energies which are intrinsic in the evolving matter, and 
without the interference of agencies that are external to it.... 
The science of evolution is the science of creation.’’ This state- 
ment allows no place for divine creation. 

A more exact statement concerning creation as it is viewed 
by true evolutionists consists in the denial of it. Professor 
Pfleiderer says, ‘‘There is only one choice. When we say evolu- 
tion we definitely deny creation. When we say creation we 
definitely deny evolution.’’ Prof. James Sully writes, ‘‘The 
doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation.’’ 
That creation and evolution are, in their essential nature, ex- 
clusive of each other is evident from the statement of another 
eminent evolutionist, Professor LeConte, who defines evolution as 
follows: ‘‘ Evolution is (1) Progressive change, (2) according to 
certain laws, (3) by means of resident forces.’’ This is the evolu- 
tion theory in its true form as held by its ablest modern support- 
ers. 

In its relation to theology, however, evolution is held in at 
least three different forms—(1) naturalistic, (2) semi-theistie, 
and (3) theistic. Naturalistic evolution assumes that all nature, 
inorganic and organic, in all its forms has been evolved from 
a primitive fire-mist by resident forces and without any divine 
intervention whatsoever at any time. It is purely materialistic 
and atheistic. No power nor efficiency is admitted except what 
originally existed in the fire-mist. Eminent evolutionists, such as 


THE WORKS OF GOD 245 


Ernest Haeckel, have held this view and regarded it as the only 
consistent theory of evolution. Sufficient refutation of this 
view was given in the discussion of theism, where it was shown 
to be unproved and in its nature unprovable. 

Semi-theistic evolution supposes God originally created a 
low form of life and endowed it with the capacity for evolving 
higher forms continuously. Charles Darwin admitted divine 
creation of a few simple forms at the beginning of life, probably 
not more than six, and that since that time the process has been 
entirely naturalistic without any divine intervention. The best 
that can be said of such a view is that it is consistent only with 
deism, and is as destructive to religion and true piety as is 
that form of infidelity in that it places God far away and denies 
the statements of the Scriptures. 

Theistic evolution supposes God not only originated the first 
forms of life, but that he has interposed with creative efficiency at 
various stages of the evolutionary process. The degree to which 
God is admitted varies with the individuals who hold theistic 
evolution. Some of its advocates regard evolution as being 
merely the method of the divine working. They assume that in 
conjunction with such mediate working God intervenes with 
direct miraculous operations, especially in the production of 
man’s mind, which is regarded as an immediate creation. Some 
theistic evolutionists assume so large an element of direct divine 
creation that the evolutionary process largely loses its character. 
To whatever extent direct creation is admitted evolution is ex- 
cluded. Theistic evolution has been accorded credence by many, 
but it has its difficulties. It is a compromise of Christian 
theology with antitheistic evolution. The modern evolutionary 
hypothesis as originally set forth was not theistic, but natural- 
istic. The evolution of scientists at the present day as defined 
by LeConte is naturalistic. In its essential nature the supposed 
process of evolution has no place for divine intervention. Some 
of its ablest advocates among eminent scientists positively deny 
any miraculous intervention. Haeckel and many others have 
said that if the Creator is admitted at any point he may as 
well be admitted all along the line. 

2. Evolution and the Scriptures Irreconcilable—Professor Fair- 
hurst has well said in his ‘‘Theistic Evolution’’ that ‘‘ theistic 
evolution is conceivable; but Christian evolution is ineconceiv- 


246 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


able.’’ Theism and Christianity are not identical. All Chris- 
tians are theists, but all theists are not Christians. The Jews, 
for the most part, are theists, but not Christians. A Christian 
is one who believes in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. 
Evolution, even when regarded as a divine method, can not be 
harmonized with the plain statements of the Bible. To admit 
divine creation into an evolutionary process at all the points 
required by any proper interpretation of the Biblical record 
would leave so little place for evolution that the process would 
not deserve the name. 

It is inconsistent to regard the Bible as true and yet hold 
evolution. The more thoughtful of theistic evolutionists do not 
accept the Bible as fully inspired nor as being true in every 
part. They usually hold with the higher critics that the account 
of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 is not a true history, but is purely 
mythical and of human origin. They deny the Mosaic author- 
ship of the Pentateuch and attribute it to various unknown 
persons whose writings have been compiled by other unknown 
rersons and later attributed to Moses. These writings are re- 
garded by them as belonging to the same class of myths as those 
of heathen nations. Such is the view held by A. S. Peake and 
other equally representative writers of the critical school. If 
the objection is made to such loose dealing with the inspired 
record that Jesus and the apostles attributed the Pentateuch 
to Moses (Mark 12:26; Luke 24:44; John 1:45; 5:46, 47) they 
agree, but they say that either ignorantly or intentionally Jesus 
misrepresented the facts concerning the authorship of the Pen- 
tateuch. 

Such an attitude toward the Scriptures is the only one that 
is consistent with theistic evolution. Professor Fairhurst says, 
‘“‘T feel sure that if cosmic theistic evolution is accepted and 
pushed to its logical results, the Bible as the inspired book of 
authority in religion will be eliminated.’’ Higher criticism, which 
practically denies the divine authority of the Scriptures, is the 
theological aspect of evolution. Theistic evolution is the logical 
starting-point of the system of modern religious liberalism, the 
theology of which is that of the higher critics, and the practical 
manifestation of which is socialized Christianity. The tendency 
of theistic evolution is to the atheistic form, and with this denial 
of a personal God must logically follow a denial of all miracles 


THE WORKS OF GOD 247 


and an inspired Bible. When the Bible is discredited with its 
divine Christ and salvation through his atonement, the logical 
consequence is a social gospel. 

But the divine authority and full inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures have been shown in a previous division, and the historical 
character of the creation record in Genesis has also been shown. 
Turning to the Mosaic narrative, we find record of successive 
creations in progressive order, without one hint of evolution, 
but rather disproof of it. We admit that the Bible must be in- 
terpreted in correspondence with all known facts, but with the 
evidence that it is God’s Word it may be appealed to in refuta- 
tion of unproved and unprovable theories. 

Almost no one, even of theistic evolutionists, believes evolu- 
tion is taught in the first two chapters of Genesis. Even if 
evolution were a fact, we readily admit it would probably not 
have been clearly set forth in a book intended to teach religion 
In an unscientific age. However, the question is, does the Bible 
contradict the idea of evolution or may they be harmonized? 
Evolutionists have often affirmed that the fact of divine creation 
is declared in Genesis, but that it is not stated whether it was 
immediate by a divine fiat or mediate and by a process of evolu- 
tion. But in the account of man’s creation, especially that in 
Genesis 2, the method as well as the fact is stated. ‘‘And the 
Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed 
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living 
soul’’ (v. 7). This text represents man, not as descended from 
the lower animals God had already created, but as an immediate 
divine creation from inanimate matter by a divine inbreathing. 
Nothing undignified such as a manipulation of the material is 
implied in God’s formation of man’s body. The divine fiat 
alone was all that was needed. 

But that which is most opposed to the idea of man’s evolution 
from the brute is in relation to the creation of Eve. Adam is 
represented as having’ been created and as being very good while 
no female of his species existed. His high dignity was such that 
among all the beasts was no suitable helpmeet found for him. 
But if he had been created by a long evolutionary process there 
must necessarily have been a long line of them reaching up to 
him and certainly one for him. The mode of Eve’s creation as 
described in Genesis is altogether irreconcilable with evolution. 


248 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


It is immediate and miraculous creation of the highest order. 
This account as literal history is regarded as incredible by many 
evolutionists, but it can be regarded as undeserving of belief 
only on the ground that all other miracles are incredible. That 
the apostle Paul accepted this account as literal history is evident 
from his reference to it in 1 Tim. 2:18: ‘‘For Adam was first 
formed, then Eve.’’ 

Another fact of Genesis irreconcilable with evolution is the 
fall and depravity of the race through Adam. The record of 
the fall as given in Genesis 3 is more fully described as affect- 
ing the race in Romans 5. Such a fall is denied by most theistic 
evolutionists. Representatives of them attribute man’s sinful 
tendency, not to a moral lapse of the race, but to remaining 
tendencies of the brute nature from which he has not yet be- 
come entirely free. Such a view is not only opposed to the 
Seriptures, but excludes redemption through Christ’s blood. 

3. Facts Reconcilable with Progressive Creation.—P rof. George 
Frederick Wright of Oberlin College, who stands in the front 
rank of modern scientific writers, says in his introduction to 
‘““‘The Other Side of Evolution,’’ by Patterson, ‘‘The doctrine 
of evolution as it is now becoming current in popular literature 
is one tenth bad science and nine tenths bad philosophy.’’ The 
tmsound reasoning of many evolutionists is especially noticeable 
in their assumptions that certain facts that agree with their 
theory prove it and disprove creation. But these facts agree 
with the idea of progressive creation as truly as with gradual 
evolution. Evolutionists too often have rashly assumed that 
creation must necessarily have been instantaneous and complete. 
Such an assumption is contradictory to the Bible narrative of 
creation. Progressive creation implies that there were successive 
creative acts, and that these were from lower to higher forms of 
existence. Such progressive creation is clearly set forth in the 
Mosaic record. Evolutionists have assumed that indications of 
progressive stages from lower to higher forms of life are proof 
of their theory. But if the six days of creation are understood as 
geologic ages, which is a very reasonable interpretation, then 
instead of proving evolution marks of those progressive stages 
support the Bible teaching of creation. 

It has been urged that a gradual evolution of the various liv- 
ing species from lower forms is reasonable to believe because it is — 


THE WORKS OF GOD 249 


parallel to the gradual development of the inorganic world by 
which the earth has become a suitable habitation for man, as 
indicated by geologic formations. In reply, consider first that 
the parallel is only in the length and gradual nature of the 
processes. It can not be shown that the process in inorganic na- 
ture was by an inherent force without divine direction. Also 
it is worthy of note that the process was a cooling and, as Profes- 
sor Fairhurst has stated, a dying process and therefore not par- 
allel with the evolution of living species by resident forces. Espe- 
cially is the evolutionist’s argument groundless because progres- 
Sive creation of species is also parallel to the gradual formation 
ef the earth. Another argument of evolutionists is the simplicity 
of the early living forms in comparison with later ones. Here 
again progressive creation accounts for all the facts as fully as 
does the theory of evolution. 

Again it is urged that the evolutionary hypothesis is sup- 
ported by the similarities which may be traced, stage by stage, 
through a large part of the line of organic forms. Doubtless 
much similarity between species exists, but does such resemblance 
prove all these animals are therefore genetically connected? Mr. 
Huxley, who ealled this the morphological argument, said, ‘‘ No 
amount of purely morphological evidence can suffice to prove 
things came into existence in one way rather than another’’ 
(Study of Zoology, p. 86). Is it not reasonable to suppose that 
things of a class having similar functions to perform should be 
constructed similarly by an intelligent creator? This very sim- 
ilarity is strong support for the idea of design in creation. 

Also it is argued that only evolution of species can account 
for the existence in the more complex animals of useless parts, 
which are said to have been used in other species from which the 
animals are assumed to have evolved. The difficulties in this 
argument for evolutionists are not a few. They cite the callosities 
on the leg of the horse as being the remains of thumbs. In the 
first place they fail to prove they are such. But if they are 
rudimentary thumbs, is it not reasonable that a divine Creator 
should carry out a general plan of structure in vertebrates, even 
though utility in the narrowest sense should not require certain 
organs? Structures of different classes of things made by men 
usually conform to a definite type even though often a part use- 
ful in some structures has no use whatever in another structure. 


250 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Another argument is the resemblance of the embryo of higher 
forms to the mature phases of lower forms. This point has been 
much stressed by evolutionists. The idea that the embryo passes 
through all the changes of its ancestral history is merely an 
assumption and is coming to be recognized in recent years as 
less conclusive than was once supposed. Professor Agassiz says, 
‘‘Anything beyond a general parallelism is hopeless.’’ In his 
‘‘Kvolution of Today,’’ pp. 125, 134, 137, 150, Professor Conn, 
a recent writer on evolution admits, ‘‘Embryology alone is not 
a safe guide, and only when verified by the fossils ean it be relied 
upon. It seldom gives a true history. .. . The parallel is largely 
a delusion. ... It often gives a false history.’’ But regarding 
man as standing at the top of an ascending order of successive 
creations, is it unreasonable that the individual embryo should at 
various stages of its formation bear a general resemblance to the 
lower species in the advancing order of creation? Is there not 
here a parallel between progressive creation of species and prog- 
ress in the formation of an individual of the higher species? 

A more popular argument is the efficiency of artificial breeding 
in producing varieties. But in reply it is well to remember these 
are only varieties of an already existing species and not new 
species. Mr. Darwin himself said, ‘‘There are two or three 
million of species on earth—sufficient field, one might think, for 
observation. But it must be said today that, in spite of all the 
efforts of trained observers, not one change of a species into an- 
other is on record’’ (Life and Letters, Vol. III, p. 25). That no 
such evolution of a new species has been observed since Darwin 
wrote is stated by Professor Conn: ‘‘It is true enough that 
naturalists have been unable to find a single unquestioned in- 
stance of a new species. ... It will be admitted at the outset 
on all sides, that no unquestioned instance has been observed of 
one species being derived from another. ... It is therefore im- 
possible at present to place the question beyond dispute’’ (Evo- 
lution of Today, p. 23). Here is a fatal weakness of the evolu- 
tion theory. The observation of one actual instance of the evolu- 
tion of a new species would do much to prove the theory, but its 
ablest advocates admit this is lacking. Therefore the artificial 
breeding argument for evolution, like all the others, is incon- 
clusive. 

4, Objections to the Evolution Theory.—Besides the reasons 


THE WORKS OF GOD 251 


already given for not accepting evolution is the important one 
that it is not a fact of science, but only an unproved hypothesis. 
Huxley said, ‘‘ After much consideration, and with assuredly no 
bias against Mr. Darwin’s views, it is our clear conviction that 
as the evidence now stands it is not absolutely proved that a 
eroup of animals, having all the characteristics exhibited by 
species in nature, has ever been originated by selection, whether 
natural or artificial’? (Lay Sermons, 295). That it is still an 
unproved theory and not science is stated by Alfred Fairhurst, 
A. M., D. Se., Professor of Natural Science of the University of 
Kentucky. ‘‘Evolution is not a science; it is only a theory that 
ean not be proved to be true’’ (Theistic Evolution, p. 49). The 
wide acceptance of it today is not usually because evidence in 
support of it appeals to men’s reason, but more often because it 
appeals to their disposition to irreligion or because they are 
led to suppose all scientists have the proof of it and believe it. 
The fact is that many leading scientists of the past and of the 
present have refused to accept evolution. 

In his ‘‘Theistic Evolution,’’ pp. 69-78, (1919) Professor 
Fairhurst has quoted among other statements from the following 
of the world’s greatest scientists in which they repudiate the 
evolution theory: Professor Fleischman, of Erlanger; Professor 
Zoeckler, of the University of Greifswald; Prof. Whilhelm 
Wundt, of Liepsic, who stands at the head of German psycholo- 
gists and who in his early life supported evolution and wrote 
books in its favor; Dr. Etheridge, of the British Museum, one 
of England’s most famous experts in fossilology ; Prof. Lionel S. 
Beale, physiologist, microscopist, and professor of anatomy and 
pathology in King’s College, London, who stands with Lord 
Kelvin at the head of English scientists, and in his field is almost 
without a peer in the world; Professor Virchow, of Berlin, who 
was styled the ‘‘foremost chemist of the globe’’ and who was the 
highest German authority in physiology. To these might be add- 
ed the statements of other eminent scientists, some of whom have 
been quoted in the foregoing pages. 

The following are a few of the positive arguments against 
evolution : 

1. It fails to account for the origin of matter and foree. The 
scientist may answer that it is not within the sphere of the natu- 
ral scientist to deal with original causes, but only with causes and 


252 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


phenomena within existing nature. But when evolutionists affirm 
spontaneous generation they dogmatize about original causes and 
are out of the realm of science and in that of theology or philoso- 
phy. If they so discuss the cause of life, we may rightly demand 
that they likewise account for the cause of their alleged cause of 
life—matter and foree. Here evolution fails. 

2. It fails to account for the origin of life, and confesses that 
no proof of spontaneous generation exists. If a divine Creator 
was required to originate life, it is not unreasonable to suppose, 
as Haeckel said, that all species have been so originated. This 
objection has been set forth under antitheistic theories. 

3. It may be argued against evolution that if species are a 
result of evolution there must necessarily be at present a great 
mass of living intermediate or transitional forms as well as 
fossils of such intermediate links in the chain of existence. But 
these ‘‘missing links,’’ not only between man and lower forms, 
but between all the millions of living species, which must have 
existed, on the assumption of slow mutations, are conspicuously 
absent. Such complete absence is reason for believing they 
never existed. Also, as an example of another phase of this 
objection, why do we not find partially developed eyes not yet 
capable of seeing, as Professor Fairhurst has inquired ? 

4, Another difficulty for evolution igs that individuals of 
varieties that are the result of artificial breeding are in the full- 
est degree fertile with individuals of the parent stock or other 
varieties. This is true of chickens, and if all varieties of chick- 
ens were allowed freely to interbreed they would soon lose all 
distinctiveness and revert to their original type by intercrossing. 
How then does nature prevent such loss of distinction by inter- 
erossing? The most reasonable view is that these varieties are not 
distinct species. Variations within species are certain, but the 
evolving of a new species as is claimed by evolution has never been 
observed. Species are fixed. The mating of a male and a female 
of closely related species may result in offspring, as in the case 
of the mule, which is the hybrid from the crossing of the ass and 
the mare, but the mating of a male and female mule is always 
non-productive. Huxley says this infertility is due to the fact 
that such hybrids are ‘‘physiologically imperfect and deficient in 
the structural parts of the reproductive elements necessary to 


THE WORKS OF GOD 253 


) 


generation.’’ No true hybrid species has been generated. Only 
variations within species exist except in the imaginations of 
uninformed evolutionists. 

5. Another difficulty of evolution is so to represent the required 
elements of the doctrine that they do not contradict one another. 
Organic nature must be regarded as very plastic to account for 
the great changes that have occurred. But if living organisms 
are so disposed to change why has so little change ever actually 
occurred during the period of observation by men? Dr. H. C. 
Sheldon, though favoring evolution, admits the difficulty here as 
follows: ‘‘It suits one demand of evolution doctrine to suppose 
modifications of organisms to take place with exceeding slowness. 
When the limited achievements of artificial selection are under 
review, it is convenient to refer to the immense eons through 
which nature has wrought out and fixed the various products of 
her workmanship. On the other hand, when the attention is 
directed to the absence of intermediate forms in the geological 
record, it is convenient to assume crises, Jumps in nature, or 
seasons of rapid evolution. Logically the intervention of such 
seasons or rapid development of permanent varieties, or species, 
may be conceivable. But if the stimulus of special natural con- 
ditions can effect this, the question why the stimulus of artificial 
conditions can not do more in the production of permanent forms 
needs to be well answered’’ (System of Christian Doctrine, p. 
243). 

These and other insurmountable obstacles described, especi- 
ally the absolute incompatibility of the evolutionary hypothesis 
and the statements of the Bible are deemed sufficient ground on 
which to repudiate every form of evolution as the method of 
divine creation. 

III. God’s Work in Providence 

The providence of God may be described as being his preser- 
vation of the things he has created and his care for and direc- 
tion of them to the accomplishment of the ends of their creation. 
The divine providence is a clearly revealed fact of Holy Scripture. 
In Heb. 1:3 Christ is said to be ‘‘ upholding all things by the word 
of his power.’’ In the prayer in Neh. 9:6 it is said of the 
heavens, earth, and all therein, ‘‘Thou preservest them all.’’ 
God is said to feed the fowls of the air and to clothe the grass 
of the field (Matt. 6:26-30). And of his people it is said his 


254 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


eare is so great that he has even the very hairs of their heads 
all numbered (Matt. 10:30). His providence is universal in its 
extent. 

The providential works of God may be divided into two classes 
—natural and supernatural, or ordinary and special. By natural 
providence is meant the operation of God according to the laws 
of nature. There he always works uniformly. All the working 
of God is supernatural as to causal efficiency, but there is a clear 
distinction between his uniform and ordinary operations and 
his special, miraculous acts in answer to prayer. 

1. Natural Providence——God is not only the creator of all 
things, but is also preserver of those things he has created. 
Creation is the divine act by which all things are caused to exist, 
but a continuous agency of God is required for the orderly 
preservation of those things. Though it has been often assumed 
that except for the preserving power of God all created sub- 
stance would fall into nonentity, yet it is questionable whether 
sound reasoning requires such a conclusion. But a continuous 
preserving efficiency of God is doubtless requisite to the con- 
tinuance of substance in orderly forms. In this respect it may 
be said of all things, ‘‘Thou preservest them all.’’ 

There is no ground, either Seriptural or rational, for assum- 
ing that this preservation is of the nature of a continuous 
creation, as has been held by Augustine, Aquinas, and some 
of the New England theologians. According to this theory 
existing things of the present moment will have dropped out 
of existence the next moment and will have been supplanted by 
a new ereation. So from the time of the original creation such 
new creations have appeared continuously differing from the 
original creation only in resembling and supplanting former ex- 
istences. Such seems to be the theory in its simplified form. 
The exact nature of God’s method of preserving the universe 
is beyond the reach of our inspection, but it is doubtless a pres- 
ervation in a real sense. 

In approaching the subject of God’s control over nature, 
the question at once confronts us, does God direct nature by 
separate volitions and by a power entirely external to it, or 
does he govern it by general laws and by an efficiency inherent 
in nature? Is divine providence mediate or immediate? To 
state the question differently, did God at the time of creation 


THE WORKS OF GOD 255 


invest nature with certain forces by which it is operated—did 
he wind up the universe so it runs of itself, or is all its power 
the direct working of God’s power and is its every movement 
due to the immediate volition of God’s will? That the ques- 
tion is difficult and should not be answered hastily is evident 
from the fact that the ablest thinkers of various schools of both 
theological and philosophical thought have differed widely con- 
cerning it. If the question is not inscrutable, it is so obscure 
that dogmatism is improper. But even if we can not fully 
know the answer to these questions, we may at least understand 
how to trust in the divine providence, which is the important 
thing. 

A theory held by not a few, including all deists, is that God 
ereated physical nature with inherent forces such as gravi- 
tation, cohesive attraction, chemical affinity, electricity, and mag- 
netism, which are sufficient of themselves for the operation and 
guidance of nature, and that God has nothing to do immedi- 
ately with the question of nature at present, having done all this 
work at the beginning. This makes his government only mediate. 
To our thought this theory is inadequate in that it fails to ac- 
count for facts as we know them. JInterpositions of God in 
both sacred and secular history can not properly be denied. 
But this theory requires such denial. Another practical objec- 
tion to it is that it makes no place for trust in providence and 
is therefore inconsistent with faith’and prayer. It removes 
God so far away that there remains no stimulation to piety. 

The opposite theory denies second causes and any essential 
force in matter, and makes the immediate power of God the 
sole force in inanimate nature. This view has been held by 
some eminent thinkers. According to it, matter is entirely 
forceless. There is no inherent power of gravity in the earth 
that draws all bodies toward its center, but it is only the ocea- 
sion for the immediate power of God to force them in that 
direction. The heavenly bodies are not held in their courses 
by inherent attraction and centrifugal force, but by the power 
of God directly manifested which maintains them in such rela- 
tions as would inherent forees. Lightning does not kill a man, 
but the direct power of God. The seed is not the cause of the 
tree, but only the occasion for the divine operation in produc- 
ing it. Cohesion is not an inherent quality of matter, but par- 


256 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ticles adhere to each other because of a direct operation of God 
in holding them in such relations. This theory also appears 
to be defective in denying what seems to be the reality of 
inherent physical forces. But the chief objection to it is the 
tendency it gives to pantheism and idealism in so closely identi- 
fying his working with nature. Also it is liable to beget irrev- 
erence because of familiarity with the working of God. 

The mode of the divine providence that best agrees with 
what we know of nature and God as revealed in the Scriptures 
and his works, partakes of the main idea in both these views. 
We may well think of God as having invested nature with in- 
herent powers and having’ determined the mode of their action. 
These forces operate in harmony with natural laws. On the 
other hand, we should think of God as everywhere present 
superintending the operation of these non-intelligent forces and 
directly cooperating with them to accomplish his high purpose. 
If God does not thus cooperate with the forces of nature, then 
the Seripture statements that he feeds the fowls of the air and 
is aware of the sparrow’s fall are meaningless. Such a view 
allows for a government of the world by general laws and at 
the same time furnishes ground for the trust of his children 
in his providence and for supernatural manifestations. 

To think of God as directly operative in nature in conjunc- 
tion with inherent forces is not to deny uniformity of natural 
law. Such uniformity rather requires divine superintendence 
and control of natural forces. The idea that direct divine 
operation in connection with nature must necessarily be capri- 
cious and disturbing to uniformity is a groundless assumption. 
If man can freely act upon nature by employing natural forces, 
certainly God can do so without causing disorder. By the use 
of natural forces men overcome the power of gravity by flying in 
an aeroplane, but this does not constitute an interruption of 
uniformity in nature. Is the power of the Infinite so limited 
by his own laws that he can not act freely on nature as do 
his rational creatures? If so then trust in providence is 
unreasonable, revelation is impossible, prayer can have no 
efficiency, and religion in its highest form is a superstition. 

But the uniformity of the operation of nature is a fact, 
and can be accounted for only on the ground of the direct super- 
intendence of God over natural forces. This uniformity is 


THE WORKS OF GOD 257 


necessary and doubtless exists for the well-being of sentient 
creatures. Except for the uniform movements of the earth in 
relation to the sun, life on the earth would soon be extinct. The | 
uniformity of gravity is essential to man’s life and all his doings. 
If food sometimes nourished and sometimes poisoned the body, 
if the heart pulsated or the lungs respired only at times and 
not regularly, life would be impossible. Therefore general 
uniformity in nature is necessary to the existence of living 
creatures. The direct operation of God in nature must be gen- 
erally uniform. 

In the realm of living organisms as well as in lower nature 
is to be found inherent force, but here also a direct divine super- 
intendence is necessary to the perpetuation of life through those 
forces. Life is not self-sufficient. It is because of this immediate 
directive agency of God in maintaining life that the Scriptures 
declare not one sparrow shall fall on the ground without your 
Father. With all due allowance for inherent forces in nature, 
yet it may be held that in a very real sense God clothes the 
grass of the field, and feeds the fowls of the air. His directing 
agency permeates all his works. By his potential omnipresence 
he is everywhere to know and to do. Such a view of God in 
relation to the world agrees with all we know of God from 
Revelation and nature, and is conducive to piety by represent- 
ing the benefits that come to us as the result of his immediate 
working. To suppose God’s agency in providing for us occurred 
millions of years ago and that all our good things are directly 
the product of blind non-intelligent forces is, to say the least, 
not likely to stir in us any emotions of gratitude. But to think 
of God as now guiding all his works, brings him near us and 
is important to that attitude of worshipful dependence that holds 
so large a place in true religion. 

2. Supernatural Providence.—In the light of what has already 
been said, it is evident that all providence is in some sense 
supernatural. <A distinction may be made, however, between 
that ordinary and uniform operation of God in connection with 
the laws of nature by which he feeds the fowls of the air, and 
his special working in protecting from harm by accident or in 
supplying a special need of one of his righteous children who 
definitely trusts him for such benefits. Special, or supernatural, 
providence also includes those blessings that are received in 


255 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


answer to prayer as well as all miracles. All benefits that do 
not come to us through natural processes may well be termed 
supernatural. 

The Seriptures in every part clearly teach such a special 
divine care and blessing of the righteous because they are right- 
eous. ‘‘O fear the Lord, ye his saints: for there is no want to 
them that fear him. The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger: 
but they that seek the Lord shall not want any good thing’’ 
(Psa. 34:9, 10). ‘‘Trust in the Lord, and do good; so shalt 
thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed’’ (Psa. 
37:3). ‘‘He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him’’ (Psa. 
145:19). ‘‘I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not 
seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread’’ (Psa. 
37:25). ‘‘But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his right- 
eousness; and all these things shall be added unto you’’ (Matt. 
6:33). ‘‘But my God shall supply all your need according to 
his riches in glory by Christ Jesus’’ (Phil. 4:19). This very 
common teaching of the Seriptures is corroborated by the feel- 
ing of dependence of the righteous and the cravings of the 
Christian consciousness for divine care and guidance. Also it 
is the common experience of the most devout Christians that 
God does thus care especially for them. One of the most com- 
forting thoughts to the godly is that ‘‘all things work together 
for good to them that love God.’’ 

But by what method does God especially protect and help 
the righteous? How ean he specially operate to benefit the 
righteous without throwing nature into disorder or interfering 
with the uniformity of it? The difficulties here are not so great 
as the antisupernaturalist assumes. God’s special care for the 
righteous may be through the exercise of divine power inde- 
pendently of and superior to his ordinary works in nature—or 
by miracles. But supernatural providence is probably more 
often exercised in the realm of mind than by a miraculous 
changing of physical nature. By what mode God presents ideas 
directly to the consciousness of men is inscrutable, but that he 
does so cause us to know certain things and does influence our 
thought is evident from both the Bible and experience. 

By such divine influence on men’s minds they may be led to 
do such things as will be for their good. This is probably the 
most common method of providential guidance in the affairs 


THE WORKS OF GOD 259 


of life. In such a case there is a supernatural providence 
though it may not be distinguished as such. Divine action 
in the realm of mind may also result in other supernatural 
benefits. A minister who had no income except free-will offer- 
ings needed a certain amount of money for a particular pur- 
pose. A person who could not possibly have known about his 
need handed to him at the very time it was needed the exact 
amount required and remarked that he had been impressed 
to give it to the minister. This and numberless similar occur- 
rences must be attributed to supernatural providence acting 
in the realm of mind. Christians may be supernaturally pros- 
pered in business by the same method. The thoughts of the 
farmer may be divinely directed so he will plant and reap at 
opportune times. Buyers may be likewise influenced to pur- 
chase their supplies from a Christian merchant whom God 
would prosper. A certain Christian intended taking a certain 
ship for an ocean voyage, but at the last moment decided to 
wait for a later ship and by so doing was spared while the 
first ship and all on board were lost. These and many similar 
events are examples of supernatural providence. The destruc- 
tion by a storm at sea of the Spanish Armada, which was sent 
out to destroy Protestant England, did not necessarily require 
a divine intervention in physical nature, but only such an influ- 
encing of the mind of the commander of the fleet in regard 
to the time of its sailing as would cause it to be at the place 
where it was lost when that particular storm occurred. Evidently 
supernatural providence does operate in the realm of mind, but 
it is not therefore to be assumed that divine interposition never 
occurs in physical nature. 

Prayer must also be allowed a large place in connection 
with supernatural providence. Deists and all who deny God’s 
personality recognize no objective value of prayer. But the 
impulse to pray is deeply implanted in the race, and there is 
implied in it an expectation of answers to prayer. The Scrip- 
tures clearly teach that God answers prayer and that to ask 
for those things he needs is the privilege of the Christian. ‘‘Be 
eareful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplica- 
tion with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto 
God’’ (Phil. 4:6). ‘‘What things soever ye desire, when ye 
pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them’’ 


260 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


(Mark 11:24). And not only does the Bible furnish us with 
many such promises, but it also abounds with records of the 
fulfilment of them in definite answers to prayer. Fire fell 
from heaven on Jehovah’s altar in response to a simple prayer 
by Elijah the prophet, and later when he prayed for rain the 
drought of three years and six months was ended promptly by a 
great rain. 

No grander privilege is offered to men than that of prayer. 
Nothing brings greater joy to the devout soul nor awakens in 
him a deeper love for God than to experience a definite answer 
to his own believing petition. ‘Such answers to prayer are the 
most impressive of all providential manifestations. 

It is not to be assumed, however, that everything which the 
Christian asks of God will be granted. God’s promises are 
eonditioned by his will. He will not do what is inconsistent 
with his character and his plan. A Christian’s prayer for the 
pardon of an impenitent sinner acquaintance could not be 
answered because it would be a violation of God’s own holiness. 
Neither could God consistently grant a petition of one who 
should ask to be allowed to remain alive on earth forever, be- 
cause such would be contradictory to God’s plan. Also God 
will not answer prayer if such would conflict with his plan for 
the one who prays. For this reason Jesus’ prayer for the 
passing of his cup of suffering and Paul’s for the removal of 
the thorn in his flesh were not granted, though each prayed 
three times. The salvation of men necessitated Jesus’ suffer- 
ings, and Paul’s moral welfare and usefulness required that he 
endure his thorn, but each was granted sustaining grace. But 
with all these limitations there still remains a large place for 
providential blessings through prayer. 

The objection is sometimes urged that God’s omniscience 
makes prayer needless and useless. This would indeed be true 
if the purpose of prayer were to inform God of our needs and 
desires. But God knows our needs and if their supply were 
the highest end, then we could assume his goodness would prompt . 
him to grant them. But for the development of piety in men, 
that the reception of blessings might awaken gratitude, and that 
men might feel their dependence upon God, he withholds some 
benefits until earnest petition is made for them. The objection 
to divine answers to prayer on the ground of God’s immuta- 


THE.WORKS OF GOD 26] 


bility is based on a false sense of his unchangeableness. He 
is immutable only in hig essential character, not in the sense 
that he can not act freely in harmony with his character. No 
objection to miracles, or special operations of God in nature, 
is valid in view of his free personality and direct superintend- 
ence of the operation of natural forces. 

A common objection, not only to providential blessings 
through prayer, but to all providence is the existence of the vari- 
ous ills of life. Why does God not always answer the prayers 
of the godly? Why does he allow the righteous to suffer? Why 
does he not banish sickness, pain, and death? Why did he create 
some animals to prey upon others? And why, if he superin- 
tends natural forces, does he allow destructive earthquakes, 
storms, and floods? Some of these questions may be readily 
answered. Others may be unanswerable in the present state 
of our knowledge. This is especially true of suffering among 
lower animals. But no difficulties thus remaining can over- 
throw the sure evidence we have of God’s providential care 
over his works. 

The fact of present probation accounts for much of the 
suffering of the present. It is necessary to develop moral ex- 
ecellence in men. Their souls are ennobled through suffering. 
Therefore God can not always consistently answer prayer for 
deliverance from it. But ‘‘we know that all things work together 
for good to them that love God.’’ Suffering may be for the 
purpose of correction for the righteous, but especially for the 
wicked. It may serve to deter others from moral evil, and in its 
punitive aspect may serve to uphold God’s holiness. God per- 
mits the forces inherent in nature to bring suffering and death 
to righteous and wicked. Suffering from such sources is usually 
more impressive, but is by God’s permissive will as is suffering 
from disease. No such suffering disproves God’s control in 
nature. It is punishment to the wicked and is for the spiritual 
well-being of the righteous. It is the ‘‘chastening of the Lord’’ 
if we are righteous and is for ‘‘our profit.”’ The Christian 
knows by his own past experience as well as that of others, 
especially such ancient godly men as Joseph, Job, Moses, and 
Paul, that suffering does yield rich reward, and therefore counts 
it all joy when he meets it. 

Whatever difficulties attend belief in providence, they are 


262 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


insignificant in comparison with those attendant upon its denial. 
Atheism furnishes no advantage. A certain degree of obscurity 
concerning God’s methods is necessary to present probation, 
but the devout are comforted with a blessed assurance that when 
the morning of that future day shall break they shall see clearly 
that God has done all things well. 


IV. Angels 


1. Existence and Nature of Angels——lFrequently mentioned in 
the Seriptures are a class of created, finite beings called angels, 
who are superior to human beings. The reality of such an order 
of beings has been generally believed. The belief is not only 
supported by the Scriptures, but the existence of such a class 
of beings is rationally probable. Such beings in another world 
are even conceivable on the theory of evolution. No reason 
ean be given for assuming that men are the most exalted nor 
the full measure of rational creation. As the earth is but a 
mere speck in comparison with the physical universe so is it not 
reasonable to assume that the rational creatures on the eartk 
are similarly a small proportion of all rational creatures? Mar 
is the lowest rational being we know. Is it not probable other 
rational creatures of a higher order exist? 

Angels are not merely figurative, without any real exis- 
tence, as modern rationalism assumes. Jesus recognized their 
actual existence in his answer to the Sadducees, the Jewish 
rationalists of his time. But the repudiation of the rationalistic 
denial of angelic existences does not require that we admit the 
various scholastic subtleties that were connected with the doc- 
trine in the Medieval Ages and which have led to a reaction 
in a depreciation of the truth concerning angels that is given 
in the Bible. Though the Bible frequently mentions angels, 
yet it does so only for practical purposes and in connection 
with the subject of men’s salvation. It has no interest in angels 
for their own sake, as it has not in the physical universe or 
the creation of organic nature. The Bible is anthropocentrice— 
its interest is man and his redemption. Therefore we should not 
expect it to give information concerning many points relative 
to angels that claim our interest. 

That angels are spirits is certain (Heb. 1:7). It is usually 
understood that they are pure spirits without corporeity— 


THE WORKS OF GOD 263 


similar in this respect to God. But of this we can not be abso- 
lutely sure. A council held at Nice in 784 held that they possessed 
bodies of ether or light, but the later Council of Lateran affirmed 
that they were pure spirits. Mark 12:25 has been sometimes 
regarded as ground for supposing they have such bodies as 
resurrected human bodies will be, but the text does not require 
such an interpretation. All the appearances of angels mentioned 
in the Bible may be regarded as voluntary manifestations, as 
are theophanies, and not indicative of their essential nature. 
If they have no material being, the representations of them with 
wings in visions and types should not be regarded as according 
to their real nature. 

They are not eternal nor infinite in any respect. They 
began to exist by means of divine creation (Heb. 1:7). When 
they were created we are not told. It is certain they not only 
antedate man, but also that they had already been created when 
the foundations of the earth were laid (Job 38:4-7). It is 
possible they existed before all material substance if we suppose 
the term ‘‘beginning’’ in Gen. 1: 1 includes only the beginning of 
matter. ‘‘They neither marry, nor are given in marriage’’ 
(Matt. 22:30); consequently they do not propagate their kind. 
Therefore they are not a race, but an order of beings. Though 
they are not eternal in that they have not always existed, yet 
they will always exist in the future because essentially immortal. 
‘‘Neither can they die’’ (Luke 20:36). Man was created lower 
than the angels, because he was made subject to death (Heb. 
2:7,9). Their number is forever fixed except God create others. 

Though the powers of angels are not infinite, yet they are 
far greater than those of men. ‘‘They are greater in power 
and might’’ than are we. They ‘‘excel in strength.’’ They can 
communicate with one another and to other intelligences. Their 
power extends to both matter and mind. An angel announced 
the birth of Christ to the shepherds. One rolled back the stone 
from the entrance to Jesus’ tomb when he rose from the dead. 
The angel who delivered Peter from prison had superhuman 
power to cause the chains to fall off him and to open the 
securely fastened iron gate. Their knowledge is also far greater 
than is man’s, though not without limit. We have no way of 
knowing what is the mode and full extent of their knowledge. 
While they are certainly not omnipresent either essentially or 


264 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


potentially, yet their power of rapid movement from place to 
place is inconceivably great, because at the time of his appre- 
hension in Gethsemane Jesus said to Peter, ‘‘Thinkest thou that 
I can not now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give 
me more than twelve legions of angels?’’ The implication 
seems to be that they can move from place to place instantane- 
ously. 

Angels are also moral beings and are divided into two classes, 
good and evil. With the several foregoing qualities they must 
also possess personality in the truest sense. Personality is im- 
plied in their being spirits. Their seeking knowledge (1 Peter 
1:12), feeling “‘joy,’’ and performing acts, is evidence that they 
have all the constituent qualities of personality—intellect, sen- 
sibility, and will. The subject is alluring to the imagination 
and much might be inferred, but certain knowledge of the 
nature of higher rational creatures extends but little beyond 
the foregoing. 

They have no power over men except it is divinely given. 
Therefore they are not to be feared because of any harm that they 
might do to us nor worshiped because of any good that comes 
to us by their agency. In no instance do holy angels accept 
worship from men, but exhort to ‘‘ worship God.’’ 

2. Good Angels——These are called ‘‘holy angels.’’ Their 
being so designated is probably not due merely to their having 
been so created, but especially to their faithfully enduring a 
period of probation and to their now being confirmed in holi- 
ness. They obey God perfectly (Matt. 6:10). How many of 
these God has created we do not know. It ig clear, however, 
that their number is very great. Jesus said he could have 
twelve legions of angels to protect him. Counting according 
to the greater Roman legion this would be seventy-two thousands. 
But Jesus more probably intended to express the idea of a 
great number. In Dan. 7:10 God is represented as ministered 
to by millions and with one hundred million standing before 
him. The writer to the Hebrews mentions ‘‘an innumerable 
- company of angels.’’ No reason can be given why they may 
not be so many that their number is literally incomprehensible 
to us. A certain gradation and organization exists among 
them. This appears from their having thrones, dominions, prin- 


THE WORKS OF GOD 265 


cipalities, and powers (Col. 1:16). Michael is represented in 
the Seriptures as the archangel. 

Angels are described as being especially devoted to the wor- 
ship of God (Isa. 6: 2-4). They are represented in the Scrip- 
tures as being especially employed in helping God’s people. 
‘‘Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for 
them who shall be heirs of salvation?’’ (Heb. 1:14). Doubtless 
in relation to man this is their office. Certainly it is not to rule 
over him. But because of the anthropocentric character of the 
Scriptures we should not suppose this is their sole employment 
nor even their main work. What is their employment in heaven 
is unknown to us, but it may be supposed it is some form of 
loving service becoming to their holy natures. 

They ministered to the patriarchs as messengers from God 
(Gen. 18:2; 19:15). The law at Sinai was given to Israel 
through their agency (Heb. 2:2). Through them messages were 
given to the prophets (Dan. 9:21). They also predicted and 
celebrated the birth of Christ (Luke 1:11; 2:9). They strength- 
ened Jesus after the temptation in the wilderness and after the 
agony in Gethsemane. They announced Jesus’ resurrection and 
comforted the disciples at the ascension. They bore the soul of 
the beggar, Lazarus, to paradise. They are also to attend Christ 
at his second coming. 

Jesus said of little children, ‘‘Their angels do always behold 
the face of my Father which is in heaven.’’ This has been made 
the ground of the theory that each child and each of God’s 
people has a particular guardian angel. The Bible gives no 
support to such an idea. When the damsel Rhoda stedfastly 
affirmed that Peter stood at the gate of Mary’s home when he was 
delivered from prison, the people said, ‘‘It is his angel.’’ This 
has been supposed to uphold the theory of a particular guardian 
angel. But it was not originally inspired and should be regard- 
ed as no more than an idea common among the Jews. While 
the Bible does not support the idea of a particular guardian 
angel for each righteous person, yet it does give the blessed 
assurance that ‘‘the angel of the Lord encampeth round about 
them that fear him, and delivereth them’’ (Psa. 34:7). Many 
other texts teach that these holy beings are about us in times 
of danger and trouble, and also at the hour of death. 

3. Evil Angels.—Divine revelation also teaches the existence 


266 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


of evil angels whose intense malignity against God causes them 
to oppose his operations for men’s welfare by tempting men to 
oppose themselves to his holy will. The existence of such be- 
ings is rationally possible and is usually denied only by those 
denying good angels also. How beings so vile came to be has 
been a matter of much inquiry. They must either be eternal 
or else were divinely created. It has usually been assumed 
that only God is eternal. ‘‘By him were all things created, 
that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible’’ 
(Col. 1:16). This text is fairly good ground for supposing 
evil angels are not eternal, but created of God. But it is in- 
conceivable that the holy God would create vile beings. There- 
fore he must have created them holy and they became sinful 
in character by their own acts, as has man. 

An apostasy of angels is clearly stated in the Bible. ‘‘God 
spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, 
and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto 
judgment’’ (2 Peter 2:4). ‘‘The angels which kept not their 
first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in 
everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the 
great day’’ (Jude 6). Angels were at one time all holy and 
on probation. Some sinned and lost their holy estate. What 
was the nature of their sin is not stated. It has been supposed 
from 1 Tim. 3:6, that it was pride and self-exaltation. The 
‘‘econdemnation of the devil’’ is supposed to mean the condem- 
nation he incurred by his sin. These sinful angels are usually 
supposed to be identical with the devil and his angels. As sin- 
ful men are opposed to the kingdom of righteousness so are 
these sinful angels. Of the time when they sinned we only 
know it was anterior to man’s apostasy. 

The evil spirits are designated ‘‘devils’’ in the common 
English Version of the New Testament, but are more correctly 
called ‘‘demons’’ in the Revised Version. One evil spirit is 
superior in rank and power to the others. He is called Beel- 
zebub, the prince of devils; Satan, the adversary; the devil or the 
slanderer; the evil one; the prince of darkness; Belial: and the 
tempter. The number of the demons is great. Jesus cast seven 
demons out of Mary Magdalene. The Gadarene demoniac is 
represented as possessed of a legion or a great multitude of 


THE WORKS OF GOD 267 


them. They were numerous enough to cause the drowning of 
two thousand swine into whom they had entered. 

The general nature and powers of demons are similar to 
those of holy angels. They are of greater power and knowledge 
than men. Satan, it appears, is superior in power to the demons 
over whom he is ruler, but there is no reason for assuming he 
is all powerful, omniscient, or omnipresent. It is certain God has 
greater power from the fact that Satan could tempt Job only 
by divine permission. Also God will not suffer us to be tempted 
above that we are able to bear (1 Cor. 10:13). The limitation 
of Satan’s knowledge is evident from his failure to know that 
Job would endure his trial. If he had foreknowledge of the ac- 
tions of free beings, he would have no occasion to tempt those 
who will not yield, as in Christ’s temptation in the wilderness. 
But that even the demons have superhuman knowledge is shown 
by their immediate recognition of Jesus’ divinity when he 
approached them. Though not omnipresent, yet Satan may 
possess the power of instantaneous movement from place to 
place. Also it is possible that he could work in many places 
simultaneously through the demons as agents. Probably no 
salvation is now provided for demons, although it is possible 
that it was once offered to them. 

Satan and demons are employed exclusively, as far as is 
revealed, in opposing God’s moral government. Satan tempted 
Eve in Eden under the guise of a serpent. He also tempted 
Job and Jesus. He sows the tares in men’s hearts to hinder 
the gospel and catches away the good seed of God’s Word. He 
entices men through physical desires and otherwise. What is 
the mode by which he has access to men’s minds to tempt them 
is not stated in the Bible, but it is probably by direct influence 
over the mind as is the usual method of the Holy Spirit. ‘‘ Why 
does God not kill the devil?’’ was the question of the Indian to 
Eliot, and it is often asked today. Why God allows Satan to 
continue to endeavor to turn men from God is probably not 
altogether answerable. It may be answered in a measure by 
asking another question, Why does God not annihilate wicked 
men? Doubtless it is proper in his wisdom that apostate free 
beings should be allowed to choose their course. Also God is 
doubtless more glorified by the preservation of the righteous 


268 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


amidst such temptations and by their faithful endurance of 
temptations. 

4, Demon Possession.—The possession and control of men 
by a demon spirit is not a rational impossibility. As the human 
spirit dwells in and operates the body, so it is conceivable that 
a demon may do so. As the Holy Spirit of God dwells in and 
acts on man’s body and mind, so may a demon spirit. If the 
human spirit of the hypnotist is able so to contro] another human 
being that the spirit of the second becomes dormant while the 
former acts upon it and controls its body, may not a demon 
spirit do likewise? 7 

The fact of demon possession is clearly set forth in the Bible. 
Jesus and the apostles often met or had brought to them de- 
moniacs. The demons sometimes spoke in their own persons 
and Jesus’ replies were spoken directly to them and not to the 
person possessed. Examples of this are the Gadarene demoniacs 
(Matt. 8:28; Mark 5:1). The objections to the reality of these 
being actually possessed is usually based on the denial of the 
existence of demons. Attempts have been made to account for 
the phenomena of demoniac possession on psychological grounds, 
on pathological grounds as being a result of nervous disorders, 
and on evolutionary grounds. But these theories are all entirely 
inadequate and unsatisfactory in the light of the facts. 

Jesus strongly upheld the belief in demon possession. The 
objection that he was ignorant of the facts is incompatible with 
his divinity and is acceptable only to unbelievers. The theory 
that Jesus knew demon possession was not actual and merely 
accommodated his words to a prevalent erroneous view makes 
him who was the Truth a deceiver and represents him ag con- 
versing with mere diseases and basing the claim of his divinity 
on a mere false pretension of casting out evil spirits. 

The belief in demon possession is not peculiar to Christianity. 
It was common among the Jews in Christ’s time, and has been 
generally believed in all countries and all ages. In other parts 
of the Roman Empire than Palestine it was recognized (Acts 
16:16). Dr. J. L. Nevius in his excellent work ‘‘Demon Pos- 
session and Allied Themes’’ has cited many instances in detail 
and described the general belief in it in various parts of China, 
in Japan, in India (especially among the demonolaters), and in 
other lands in the past and present. 


THE WORKS OF GOD 269 


From the Scripture accounts of demon-possessed persons and 
also from present-day examples we may know many facts con- 
cerning demon possession. The demon spirit bears a relation to 
the body of the demoniaec not very different from that which is 
normal to the human spirit. It controls the possessed person 
directly. Hither at times or constantly the human spirit is 
dormant and the demon is in control. At such times it will 
speak in its own person through the vocal organs of the person 
possessed, but often in a strange voice and will manifest super- 
human physical strength. Sometimes loud cries are uttered 
(Mark 9:26). Extreme fierceness in some cases, even attempts 
to murder, is another manifestation (Matt. 8:28). Other 
accompaniments are sounds similar to barking, hissing, croaking, 
choking, growling, grunting, also shaking, fainting, and awful 
contortions of the body and especially the face. The demon 
sometimes seeks to destroy the body possessed (Matt. 17:15), or 
afflicts it—sometimes with dumbness (Matt. 9:32), blindness 
(Matt. 12:22), deafness (Mark 9:25), or epilepsy (Mark 9:18). 
Sometimes insanity results (Matt. 17:15). An unclean demon 
will sometimes use extremely obscene language. The subject 
feels bound and tormented by the demon. However, he may have 
special miraculous powers in fortune-telling and healing the 
sick (Acts 16:16). Outward manifestations are most common 
when the demoniae comes under religious influence—especially 
when earnest, believing prayer is offered. Evidence of demon 
possession is frequently so clear that no divine power of discern- 
ment is needed to know it is such, and even those not Christians 
will recognize it. 

Persons most liable to be possessed are spiritualistic mediums 
or those otherwise connected with spiritualism. It is common 
with heathen priests and seems to be more common in heathen 
than in Christian lands. Demon possession is not limited to 
persons of weak minds, but those of culture may become pos- 
sessed. Sometimes it comes on one much as a physical malady 
in that it is in disregard of moral character. Persons of clean 
outward life may become possessed. Even children may be 
possessed (Mark 9:21). In some instances it seems to assume 
the character of an affliction for which one is not responsible 
and which does not affect the soul’s relation to God. In such 


270 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


cases possession takes place without choice on the subject’s part, 
but ordinarily it is by his voluntary choice. 

Demons are exorcised, or cast out, by various methods. 
Heathen methods consist in beating, burning, or otherwise in- 
flicting physical suffering on the body of the subject. Such may 
have been the usual method of the seven sons of Sceva, the Jew, 
who were professional exoreists (Acts 19:14). Such methods 
appear to be effective in certain cases. It is conceivable that 
the demon spirit when in control bears such a relation to the 
human body possessed that it feels that pain inflicted and is 
thus foreed to depart. Sometimes the spirit is persuaded to 
leave by promises of worship by the subject. Faith in the name 
of Jesus is the Christian method of expelling demons and is 
effective today as in the days of early Christianity. Usually 
prayer is offered and those praying lay their hands on the per- 
son possessed. Fasting is sometimes necessary (Matt. 17:21). 


PART IV 
THE DOCTRINE OF MAN, OR ANTHROPOLOGY 









4 a) 


é “4 43.’ : rt en | : ; v yy ' j 5 : 
4 ‘ it i ar il aii. is Ns f Ay Fd MN yi hs, ‘ AA | r fi , 
| ete ba o ‘ : aut ae eh 
ir 7 i Mba ¥ j f ‘ fi : ‘ ak i Mis 
Vee Vii ght) SNR (one a Yt ee Dla AN nie in . 
% 


br: Weve i x 
At ; r ’ Ae * , cf ie, " d 
h ! Aaah ye ital a " 1 4 n} my PR aN a!» nD hy i 


7 i P d *F ‘ 
4A ; ty 4 : 4 hay wy 
' ¢ i ¥ *. ; ; 


hr 
iy 


; : ; + "Ki ee aie i 
PNA Ae EN eae Tey Se hoy CRS Hy mul} ae one Sah 


2D Re way | Mais A GPR «Teta tg 


i Ne “Pay ee VAN ey ALT NT 
( t. i) ® (My \ , hsv Tu 43 ‘ 7 "y ‘a i We 
iy. +a 4 4 wa \ j | Aa a ae 7 ] yal 
ae ; Vay Cue , Ny ON a Ne | ae YY aA vy; y jad 1 yy aa a 4 Kate 
Beall S Waa rR IS Fisted’ wi Aid GaRsiie ea 
‘ 3 ; yt 4 . J rs 
i 4 : ; 1 ; ru TT, ; i 1 ak Ve - Ni ie Ae ay at nha 
i y ; f j ' } ‘ Ae A J 4 nig a 4 V y 
AT UN ae MOL are A as ish, te dh 
+ ! { 1 Ae ; hes aan it Digeh as i. ? 
ve Va! ’ Ay cei A ae yes 3.\47 Ce 
ai ys \“ ‘ eb sone ne ny 





9d We) betes sua \ : oy es ah way ay T Mh \ ee Deal nt ; ‘ty 
oie Miia e MA a Lamy WL. VEN pay by Ne AN fe i | met 








‘ i + | 
. ; wi My ‘ \ LD ‘ ‘ , f 
4 j i Wha een ' h ° ‘ ' F ve ide! Oa 
Base AG Ary tiny TER AY ‘ a) fy! NG im 4) Ot ae 
La On Te y \ 1 “ial is [ : a) fi : 
, if ay na eg i ; ; ’ ' 
ih ; t in cpt] ul 4, ih ; a 
y ONAN, | pte dt Aa x { : 
t a Was | fat 
EL AAL 4 rk: | | 
a7 ‘ ; ‘ f y iy. a af 
} ey hoay” 
7 Shes, ivy 
ai r hia wa f 7 
iy * ME ' 7 
rey . , 
j ri ie ‘ | 
‘ ' ‘ ' ALi ui ‘% ont i 
in q 
py oi) ue AN a ya em, 
; : Mn! 
: ; ’ ‘ ae h 
* Vi ‘ ‘91 





PART IV 
THE DOCTRINE OF MAN, OR ANTHROPOLOGY 


CHAPTER I 
ORIGIN AND NATURE OF MAN 


The term anthropology is derived from the Greek words 
dvdewnos (anthropos), man, and Adyos (logos), science; there- 
fore it means the science about man. In its broadest sense it 
includes all branches of science relating to man’s body and mind 
as well as that which has to do with his religious nature. Bibli- 
cal anthropology, of which Christian theology treats, has for its 
principal subject man’s moral and religious nature. 

The Seriptures ever keep the religious aspect foremost in 
all they say about man. They concern themselves with his 
origin and physical and intellectual constitution only as such 
facts contribute to true religion. But it is necessary to know 
somewhat of man’s original nature properly to understand re- 
demption through Christ. The purpose of theology, then, is to 
show what man was originally by creation, for the purpose of 
showing what he has become by the fall and what is needed 
for his redemption. Our idea of salvation is determined by the 
particular anthropology we hold. If the moral fall of the race 
is denied, consistency requires also a denial of regeneration. If 
man were regarded as at present totally depraved go he can will 
nothing good, then salvation would be monergistic, as pure 
Calvinism affirms; that is the individual’s salvation would 
depend entirely on God’s operation to save him and in no wise 
upon his own free choice. 

The origin of man is declared by the Bible to have been 
by divine creation. ‘‘So God created man in his own image, in 
the image of God created he him’’ (Gen. 1:27). Man is not’ 
a result either directly or indirectly of spontaneous generation. 
Neither is he the product of the divine operation by a process 
of evolution from lower forms. Man is neither from the brute, 
as naturalistic evolutionists affirm, nor through the brute, as 


is held by theistic evolutionists. Evolution has been sufficiently 
273 


274 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


discussed as an antitheistic theory and as a theory of creation; 
so further consideration of it here is superfluous. 

But the important fact for religion is that man owes his 
origin to God. This is the ground for his obligation to serve 
God. Because men owe everything, including existence itself, 
to God, they can not justly withhold anything from him. He 
deserves their utmost obedience and worship. They ought to 
love him with all their powers. They can not reasonably do 
otherwise. But it is only on the ground of his being their creator 
that God ean justly require such absolute submission and 
service. If he were not their creator such a demand would be 
a usurpation of a power and place in relation to men wholly 
unjustifiable. Divine creation of men is fundamental to religion 
among them. Also it is this sonship by creation that qualifies 
men for spiritual sonship through Christ. Man was created in 
God’s image, which he has lost; therefore in the new creation 
through Christ he is restored to that which originally was his 
state. 

I. Unity of the Race 

By the unity of the human race is meant that all mankind 
descended from a single original pair. On the fact of the one- 
ness of the race rests the Bible doctrine of human depravity 
and sin. This moral perversion of the race is fundamental in 
Christian doctrine, and is the ground of man’s need of redemp- 
tion through Christ. ‘‘As by one man’s disobedience many 
were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be 
made righteous’? (Rom. 5:19). The first step in proving the 
unity of mankind is to determine the time of man’s origin, for 
it is said the great differences between the races necessarily 
required a long time in which to be developed. 

1. Antiquity of the Race.—The length of time which has elaps- 
ed since the appearance of man on the earth has come in recent 
years to be a topic of special interest concerning which no little 
difference of opinion prevails. With the advancement of science, 
especially of geology, the tendency has been to claim a much 
higher antiquity for the race than was formerly allowed. The 
most commonly accepted Biblical chronology makes the time 
from Adam to Christ but 4,004 years. But the most moderate 
claims of scientists exceed this hundreds or even thousands of 
years. Also it is alleged that the unity of the race can be 


ORIGIN AND NATURE OF MAN 275 


maintained only on the assumption of a greater antiquity for 
man than 4,004 B. C. Can the Bible be reconciled with these 
claims ? 

Nowhere does the Bible state the time of man’s origin. The 
Bible gives no chronology. It is true that individuals have 
often been very dogmatic concerning the exact date of certain 
events described in the Scriptures, but the fact remains ag stated 
by Le Hir and De Sacy, ‘‘There is no Biblical chronology.’’ No 
fewer than one hundred and eighty different calculations of the 
length of the period from Adam to Christ have been set forth 
by Jewish and Christian writers, ranging from 3,483 years up 
to 6,984 years. So uncertain are all attempts to determine the 
chronology of the Bible. Therefore believers in the Bible need 
have no fear of its being contradicted by the facts of science 
concerning the age of man. If it can be shown that he has been 
on the earth for eight or ten thousand years, or even longer, 
the devout believer in the Bible need have no uneasiness, for 
the Bible affirms nothing to the contrary. 

The various schemes of Bible chronology are based upon the 
tables of genealogies given at different places in the Scriptures, 
by adding together the ages of the fathers at the time the sons 
were born. This method might give a correct chronology if all 
the links of the genealogical chain were given, but of the latter 
we have no assurance. These tables were not written for the 
purpose of determining dates of events, but to show that Christ 
was the Son of David, of the seed of Abraham, and the promised 
seed of the woman that would bruise the head of the serpent. 
Also another element of uncertainty is the difference in ages of 
the patriarchs as given in the Hebrew text and that of the 
Septuagint. According to the former, which is that of our 
common English Bibles, the period from Adam to Christ was 
about four thousand years, but the figures given in the Septua- 
gint make it nearly six thousand years. ° 

The incompleteness of the genealogical tables is probable. 
They were given to show only the line of descent, not a complete 
list of births in a particular line; consequently there was no 
necessity of completeness. On this subject Dr. Hodge quotes 
from Green as follows: ‘‘Thus in Genesis 46:18, after recording 
the sons of Zilpah, her grandsons and her great-grandsons, the 
writer adds, ‘These are the sons of Zilpah . . . and these she 


276 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


bare unto Jacob, even sixteen souls.’ The same thing recurs in 
the ease of Bilhah, verse 25, ‘She bare these unto Jacob: all the 
souls were seven.’ Compare, verses 15, 22. No one can pretend 
that the author of this register did not use the term understand- 
ingly of descendants beyond the first generation. In like man- 
ner, according to Matt. 1:11, Josias begat his grandson 
Jechonias, and verse 8, Joram begat his great-grandson Ozias. 
And in Genesis 10:15-18, Canaan, the grandson of Noah, is 
said to have begotten several whole nations, the Jebusite, the 
Amorite, the Girgashite, the Hivite, etc., ete. Nothing can be 
plainer, therefore, than that inthe usage of the Bible ‘to bear’ 
and ‘to beget’ are used in a wide sense to indicate descent, 
without restricting this to the immediate offspring’’ (Systematic 
Theology, Vol. II, pp. 40, 41). On the assumption of these 
missing links the Biblical chronology allows for whatever the 
facets of science require. 

But a clear distinction should be made between what the 
facts of science require and what a certain class of scientists 
claim. Those who assume man is a product of a process of 
evolution unite in claiming for him an antiquity of from one 
hundred thousand years to a million years or even much more. 
But such a high antiquity for man is not required by discoveries 
of archeologic geology or other evidence, but is held especially 
because it is a necessary assumption of their theory of evolution. 
Any theory of evolution must allow such long ages for a change 
so great as that which differentiates man from the brute. How- 
ever, attempts are made to support the view of a great age for 
man by appeals to the great antiquity of certain nations, and 
especially to fossil remains of man or other facts indicative of 
his presence, such as flint instruments deeply buried under drift 
deposits which are supposed to have required very long periods 
for accumulation. Also it is reasoned that those characteristics 
in color and feature which differentiate the races and the large 
number of languages must have required a very long time for 
development. 

That these facts do not require the great antiquity for man 
assumed by evolutionists is declared by some very eminent scien- 
tists. Those who hold a great age for man have often been 
convicted of reasoning unsoundly from the facts on which they 
base their arguments. Space forbids a review and refutation 


ORIGIN AND NATURE OF MAN 277 


of their arguments, but the following testimony of high author- 
ities in science is sufficient ground for holding a comparatively 
brief period for human existence on the earth. 

Prof. Alexander Winchell says, ‘‘Man has no place till after 
the reign of ice. It has been imagined that the close of the reign 
of ice dates back perhaps a hundred thousand years. There is 
no evidence of this. The fact is that we ourselves came upon 
the earth in time to witness the retreat of the glaciers. They 
still linger in the valleys of the Alps and along the northern 
shores of Europe and Asia. The fact is we are not so far out 
of the dust, chaos, and barbarism of antiquity as we had sup- 
posed. The very beginnings of our race are almost in sight. 
Geological events which, from the force of habit in considering 
them, we had imagined to be located far back in the history of 
things, are found to have transpired at our very doors.’’ 

Prof. Geo. Frederick Wright, an authority on the glacial 
period than whom there is no higher, has reached the conclusion 
that it ended not earlier than from seven to ten thousand years 
ago. Professor Holmes says the great ice sheet did not dis- 
appear until about ten thousand years ago. Such recent Ameri- 
can geologists as Professor Salisbury and Dr. Upham think that 
seven to ten thousand years is a fair estimate. Other names 
might be added. 

If we add to these estimates of seven thousand to ten thou- 
sand years for the close of the ice age the testimony of careful 
geologists that no traces of man are found before the glacial 
period and not until near its close, we have no facts from geology 
for supposing man has been on the earth more than eight thou- 
sand years to ten thousand years. Without allowing for any 
missing links in the genealogies the longer chronology from the 
Septuagint Version of the Old Testament requires nearly eight 
thousand years for the age of man. But as has been shown, 
missing links are not at all improbable. Admitting a few of 
these gives us a Biblical chronology that dates man’s origin 
ten thousand years ago, which is as much as is required by any 
historical or scientific fact known. The Bible chronology may 
be extended, without any straining of facts, to agree with all 
for which we are required to give account. 

2. Problem of Race Distinctions and Unity—The characteristics 
which differentiate the various branches of the human race are 


278 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


very marked and persistent. Doubtless the greatest differences 
exist between the Caucasian and Negroid peoples. The contrast 
is especially noticeable in the ruddy skin, the straight, round 
hair, high forehead, thin lips, and prominent nose of the former 
and the black skin, flat, kinked hair, sloping forehead, thick 
lips, and flat nose which usually characterize the latter. The 
question which confronts us in relation to these distinctions is, 
are these various races distinct species of men with different 
origins, or are they only variations within one species, similar 
to those distinctions between varieties of single species of fowls 
or beasts that are the result~-of selective artificial breeding? 
The proof that they are a single species from an original pair 
is important to theology both for apologetics and in support of 
universal depravity and redemption through Christ. The affir- 
mations by the Scriptures of man’s unity is sufficient ground for 
belief of it, but because of those who oppose these declarations 
it is well that we answer their objections. 

A distinction is conceivable between oneness of origin of 
the race and oneness of species. Such a distinction, however, 
is dependent upon the sense in which species is understood, and 
many different definitions of species have been given by scien- 
tists. It is possible that in the original creation God caused a 
particular kind of grass to grow out of the ground to carpet 
the earth in many different places all bearing seed and con- 
stituting a single species. If this were true, then a single 
species may have a plurality of origins. The possibility of the 
human race being a simple species with several origins has been 
not a little discussed in recent years. Agassiz, who was very 
prominent in science, held this theory. It represents the ex- 
treme of supernaturalism, and has been held by some on Biblical 
grounds. It assumes other families of human beings than that 
descended from Adam. Especially does it suppose there was 
one or more pre-Adamite races, and attempts to support the 
theory with various statements from the Bible. However, the 
pre-Adamic theory is not essential to a reasonable interpreta- 
tion of all the texts that are connected with it, and moreover it 
is contradictory to other clear texts (Acts 17:26; Rom. 5:12). 

A plurality of origins for mankind has been held as a ground 
for the distinctions of the various races of men. But these dis- 
tinctions may be satisfactorily accounted for otherwise. The 


ORIGIN AND NATURE OF MAN 279 


Bible teaches that all men are descended from a single pair and 
science furnishes no reason for a contrary view. In fact, science 
is not properly concerned with the question of origins. But it 
does show oneness of the human species and thus makes a place 
for the more advanced idea taught in the Bible that all men had 
a single origin. There is no disagreement between science and 
revelation on the subject, and as far as science can go it sup- 
ports the statements of the Scriptures. 

The very idea of a species is commonly understood to imply 
descent from a single source. A species, according to Quatre- 
fages, is defined as follows: ‘‘Species is a collection of individ- 
uals more or less resembling each other, which may be regarded 
as having descended from a single primitive pair by an unin- 
terrupted and natural succession of families’’ (The Human 
Species, p. 36). Species then implies certain resemblance among 
its members, but especially the family idea, which includes the 
capacity for interbreeding of its members indefinitely. In this 
sense the human beings are one species even if it could be proved 
that they were not from a single original pair. But if they 
could not be shown to be a single species, then would be lacking 
a chief ground in support of the Scripture teaching of unity 
of origin of the race. This unity of the race may be shown by 
different methods of reasoning. 

3. Physiological Argument.—Different varieties of a particular 
species may exhibit much difference in color, size, and shape. 
Such differences. are common in different varieties of dogs, 
horses, cattle, or chickens. Yet these differences, though so 
noticeable, are yet found on closer study to be but superficial. 
In all such species the similarities between varieties are many 
times more numerous, far deeper, and more abiding than any 
of the marked differences mentioned. For example, among dogs 
the great mastiff and the little Scotch terrier exhibit marked 
contrast in size. Also one may be black and the other white, 
one may have short hair and the other long hair, and they may 
differ much in relative proportion of parts and general habits. 
Yet in the number, general shape, and structure of their bones, 
and in their joints, in the structure of their muscles, and in the 
distribution of nerves and blood-vessels they are the same. They 
are both dogs and unhesitatingly recognize each other as such. 

The various races of the human species are not nearly so 


280 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


different as are the varieties of the several species of lower ani- 
mals that have been before mentioned. The difference in color 
between the black skin of the African and the ruddy complexion 
of the inhabitant of northern Europe is not nearly so great as 
that between certain varieties of dogs where one is jet black and 
the other white as snow. Neither is the difference in the shape 
of the skull in the Caucasian and Negroid so great as that be- 
tween the shape of the skull of the greyhound and the bulldog. 
The flat nose and thick lips of the African are greatly in con- 
trast with those of the typical European, but the difference is 
much greater between the upright pointed ears of the bull- 
terrier and the long lopping ears of the dachshund. 

Yet we know these differences in varieties of lower animals 
are largely the result of mere artificial breeding and mutations 
and are not indicative of distinction of species, but only of 
varieties or developments in species. Is it any less reasonable 
to regard the different races of men as being varieties of a 
single species? Just what were the causes that led to the dis- 
tinctions of the races is probably not knowable to us, but that 
climatic conditions, modes of life, sudden variations in types of 
ancestors, and other similar causes could result in such perma- 
nent differences in the course of many centuries is easily be- 
lievable. Certain tribes of North America have permanently 
altered the shape of the skull by bandaging the head in infancy. 
According to Dr. A. H. Strong, the Sikhs of India, by the 
acceptance of a new religion and a consequent advance in civili- 
zation, have changed the shape of their heads. Other similar 
examples are also cited. Surely those facts from which the 
evolutionist endeavors to show an evolution of all living species 
from a simple organism are sufficient to account for the varia- 
tions among the races of man even if they do fall short of prov- 
ing what they are assumed to prove. 

But the most certain positive evidence that all human races 
are of one species is the absence of hybridity. The union of the 
sexes of the most diverse race is as fruitful as any within a par- 
ticular race, and the offspring of such mating is in no degree 
infertile. The evidence of this is so plentiful that the statement 
of the fact is superfluous. But the sexual union of distinct 
species is unfruitful except in cases of very similar species, and 
then the offspring is infertile, which is certainly not true of the 


ORIGIN AND NATURE OF MAN 281 


mulatto. This fact of hybridity is a great law of nature and is 
regarded by naturalists as being the surest proof of the dis- 
tinction of species. 

4. Psychological Argument.—Oneness of species of the vari- 
ous races of men is also shown by sameness of psychological na- 
ture. Each species has its own peculiar psychic nature. This 
nature differs in the different species. That of the wolf is one, 
of the fox another, and so they differ in the lion, horse, cow, 
dog, and eat. It is this psychic nature or immaterial principle, 
as Agassiz called it, that is the most important distinction of 
species. It is not the difference in physical structure that makes 
the lion ferocious and the lamb docile, but the difference is in 
their inner natures. A certain variety of dogs might have much 
the same outward appearance of a lion, but such superficial 
similarity would make him none the less a dog, because he has 
the inner dog nature. And each species recognizes that inner 
nature in those of its kind. The instinets of the wolf have been 
the same always and everywhere. Likewise every species has 
instincts and habits peculiar to its kind because of identity of 
psychic nature. 

The various races of men have this same identity of soul as 
to kind. All of them have the same kind of instincts, inner 
feelings, reason, power of speech, feeling of moral responsibility, 
and disposition to worship a higher power. A great contrast 
may exist, it is true, between the degraded African savage and 
the highly civilized Caucasian, but such differences are acci- 
dental rather than essential. Examples of extreme ignorance 
and degradation may be cited among Caucasians, and instances 
of high intellectual attainments, excellent moral character, and 
unwavering Christian piety in the black and Mongolian races. 
This is evidence that their essential psychic natures are the 
same. 

5. Philological Argument—Comparative philology, or the 
study of languages, is a science based on laws as certain as those 
on which the physical sciences depend. Ethnologists trust more 
to the similarities between languages to show the relation of 
different peoples to one another than to any other one means. 
The existence of the same words in different languages is evi- 
dence that they are derived from a common original. ‘‘It is 
impossible that races, entirely distinct, should have the same 


282 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


language.’’ Max Muller has said, ‘‘The evidence of language 
is irrefragable, and it is the only evidence worth listening to, 
with regard to antehistorical periods. ... There is not an Eng- 
lish Jury nowadays, which, after examining the hoary documents 
of language, would reject the claim of a common descent and a 
legitimate relationship between Hindu, Greek, and Teuton’’ 
(Quoted by Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 90). 

Philologists have given abundant testimony to the unity of 
the race by showing that the various human languages are from 
a common original, which implies unity of species. 

6. Biblical Argument.—The clear, foregoing, scientific proofs 
of the unity of species of the human race are commonly accepted 
as evidence of unity of origin. Naturalists ordinarily assume 
unity of origin when they have evidence of oneness of species. 
Certainly unity of species makes a place for a common original 
parentage of all men which could not be admitted if it could 
be shown that the races of men are different species. 

But the Seriptures teach that all men sprang from a single 
pair and therefore imply unity of species. The Mosaie narra- 
tive of creation clearly represents Adam as the first man. In 
referring to him Paul said, ‘‘the first man Adam’’ (1 Cor. 
15:45). No pre-Adamite race existed, for it is said of Adam 
until Eve was created ‘‘there was not found an helpmeet for 
him.’’ Eve wags so named by Adam ‘‘because she was the 
mother of all living,’’ which could not have been true if a 
previously created race existed. The Genesis account represents 
all mankind as having been descended from Adam, and Noah 
and his family, who were his descendants, as the only human 
beings saved from the deluge. 

In his address on Mars’s Hill to the Athenians Paul said, 
‘‘And [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to 
dwell on all the face of the earth’’ (Acts 17:26). If it be 
objected that the best authority on the Greek text disallows 
aiwatos (haimatos) translated ‘‘blood’’ in the Common Version 
and that the Revised Version is more correct, the statement is 
strengthened rather than weakened. With the idea of their 
being of one blood it might be reasoned that they are merely 
of one nature or species, but the Revised rendering definitely 
declares that all nations of men are descended from ‘‘one,’’ im- 
plying one person, father, parentage, or source. No statement 


ORIGIN AND NATURE OF MAN 283 


could more clearly affirm the fact of singleness of origin of the 
race. This is in harmony with the various verses in Rom. 5: 
12-19 which teach that sin and death is the portion of all men 
because of Adam’s sin. 

II. Constituent Elements in Man’s Nature 

The Bible does not attempt to give a system of anthropology 
or of psychology. What it says bearing on the essential ele- 
ments of man’s nature is only incidental to its high religious 
purpose. Elaborate systems of Biblical psychology have been 
worked out, but we are no more justified in looking to the Bible 
for a knowledge of the science of psychology than for our knowl- 
edge of geology, astronomy, or any other natural science. The 
purpose of the Bible is to teach religion, not science. Its refer- 
ences to nature are always subordinate and incidental to its 
primary purpose. Yet, as God’s inspired Word, it may be ex- 
pected that it will not be found contradictory to what we know 
of the constitution of nature. Even though it does not tell us 
some things about man, yet what it does say is true. 

1. Dual Constitution of Man.—That man is a compound being 
is taught by the Bible, by philosophy, and by common sense. 
Materialism denies the reality of a distinct spiritual entity in 
him, and idealism denies the reality of his material body, but 
the Bible and the common thought of mankind clearly recog- 
nize both. 

Men intuitively know substance as a reality. The actual 
existence of their material bodies is an inalienable conviction 
of men everywhere. They know the reality of the matter com- 
posing their bodies by its properties—extension, weight, tangi- 
bility, and divisibility. But they also know another class of 
phenomena—thought, feeling, volition—which can not be re- 
ferred to material substance as its cause. These effects must be 
referred to a cause which is a spirit. As we know matter by 
its properties, so we know mind or spirit by its phenomena. 
And because phenomena must have a ground in real existence, 
therefore we know the substance called spirit is a distinct en- 
tity. But as we do not know exhaustively what is spirit, so we 
do not know what is matter. We only know the phenomena of 
the first and the properties of the second. But we know they are 
distinet and different in their natures. The mind is not spirit- 
ualized matter, neither is the body materialized mind. 


284 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Man then is composed of a material body and spirit, each a 
distinet entity, yet united in one nature or being. What is the 
connection of the spirit and the body is inscrutable. How the 
one acts on the other is a mystery. Yet we know they interact 
and are interdependent one on the other. The body is dependent 
on the spirit for its life. Without the spirit it at once becomes 
subject to the disorganizing forces of chemical laws and decays. 
Also the mind is dependent, at least in our present state, on the 
bodily senses for its connection with the external world. The 
mind operates the body, and yet disorders of the body may 
result in a disordered state of mind. Emotions of the mind, joy 
or fear, cause the heart to beat faster, yet a blow on the head 
may result in unconsciousness. This intimate relation of spirit 
and body is inexpliable, but it is true, and yet not inconsistent 
with the idea of the spirit and body being distinct entities. This 
idea of two entities in one nature is known as realistic dualism. 

The Scripture agrees with reason in recognizing this two- 
foldness in man’s nature. This distinction is recognized in the 
account of man’s original creation. He is formed from the dust 
of the ground, but he became a living soul only when God 
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Biblical proof of 
man’s duality is found in those texts which indicate a distine- 
tion between spirit and body. ‘‘The Lord... formeth the spirit 
of man within him’’ (Zech. 12:1). ‘‘For what man knoweth 
the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?’’ 
(1 Cor. 2:11). The idea of relation here expressed excludes 
the idea of identity. The spirit is not the body, but im it. It 
is the knowing, volitional part of man. ‘‘Shall I give my first- 
born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of 
my soul?’’ (Micah 6:7). Here the soul is represented ag so 
different from the body that the sin of the soul can not be ade- 
quately atoned for by a sacrifice of the fruit of the body. ‘‘Then 
shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall 
return unto God who gave it’’ (Eeel. 12:7). ‘‘I Daniel was 
grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body’’ (Dan. 7:15). 
‘And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to 
kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both 
soul and body in hell’’ (Matt. 10:28). Such a definite duality 
in man’s constitution is constantly recognized in the Bible. 


ORIGIN AND NATURE OF MAN 285 


Two distinct entities, spirit and body, are also the clear im- 
plication of those texts which represent the body as being the 
house in which the spirit dwells. ‘‘For we know that if our 
earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a build- 
ing of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heav- 
ens. ... Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst 
we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord... . 
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from 
the body, and to be present with the Lord’’ (2 Cor. 5:1, 6, 8). 
Again he said, ‘‘I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire 
to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: neverthe- 
less to abide in the flesh is more needful for you’’ (Phil. 1: 23, 
24). The apostle Peter uses similar language. ‘‘Yea, I think 
it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by 
putting you in remembrance; knowing that shortly I must put 
off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath 
showed me’’ (2 Peter 1:13, 14). In 2 Cor. 12:2 the apostle 
Paul makes the assertion that one had an experience during 
which he did not know whether he was ‘‘in the body’’ or ‘‘out 
of the body.’’ 

Nothing can be more certain than that this last class of texts 
represents the soul, the real person, as being so truly distinct 
from the body that it may have conscious existence apart from 
the body. Surely conscious existence is better than unconscious- 
ness, yet Paul says it is ‘‘better’’ to depart from the body to be 
with Christ. After death the spirit of the righteous lives with 
Christ. Jesus said to the converted thief, ‘‘Today shalt thou 
be with me in paradise.’’ This could not have been true except of 
the spirit of either of them. But further citation of Scripture 
proof of man’s twofoldness is needless because it is accepted 
almost universally by believers in the Bible. 

2. The Theory of Trichotomy.—In contradistinction to this 
twofold, or dichotomous view of man’s nature is the theory that 
he is trichotomous, or that there are three distinct elements in 
his nature—body soul, and spirit. Trichotomy has been advo- 
eated by Christians to a greater or less degree both in the past 
and present. It is not essentially contradictory to any Christian 
doctrine, and it is doubtful whether the Bible affords any posi- 
tive disproof of the theory. But the chief objection to it is that 
the large majority of careful interpreters find no Biblical sup- 


286 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


port for it, though its friends depend almost exclusively upon 
certain statements of Scriptures for its proof. Psychology not 
only fails to find such a distinction of factors in man as tri- 
chotomists make between soul and spirit, but any attempt at 
such a distinction is found to be confusing to thought. Reason 
clearly recognizes a difference between the material and spiritual 
natures, but finds no ground for further distinction as to differ- 
ent factors in man’s nature. 

The theory has been held in a variety of forms. It assumes 
three elements in man’s constitution—o@ya (soma, body), wuyy 
(psuche, soul), and avetpa (pnewma, spirit). The simplest and 
most common form of the theory is that the body is the material 
part, the soul the principle of animal life, and the spirit the 
rational or immortal part of our natures. With this view that 
which has to do with sense perceptions, understanding, and 
feeling belongs to the soul, and reason, will, and immortality to 
the spirit. It holds that at death the soul and body cease to be 
and only the spirit survives. Soul is attributed to the brute 
creation, but not spirit. In the possession of the higher prin- 
ciple, the spirit, man is differentiated from the lower animals. 
This form of the theory of trichotomy has the advantage of 
definiteness and intelligibility, even though it does lack support 
both rational and Biblical. 

Trichotomy was held by the Platonic philosophy and, as a 
result of the strong influence of Platonism on early Christian 
thought, found a considerable degree of acceptance in the early 
church, especially in the school of Alexandria. It was strongly 
opposed by Tertullian and was given no support by Augustine, 
which resulted in its coming to be viewed with disfavor by the 
majority of Christians even until the present time. The prin- 
cipal reason for the opposition to trichotomy was the use made 
of it to support certain heresies. 

The Gnostics, who held that the spirit was not capable of 
sin because a part of the divine essence, made the theory of 
trichotomy contribute to that heresy. The Apollinarians held 
an erroneous Christology which required trichotomy for its sup- 
port. It affirmed that Christ had a human body and soul joined 
with the divine logos instead of the spirit or the rational part 
of human nature. Semi-Pelagianism also built on trichotomy 
its theory that native depravity affected not the spirit, but only 


ORIGIN AND NATURE OF MAN 287 


the soul. In opposing these errors the more orthodox found it 
convenient to refute them by disproving trichotomy. But the 
mere fact that it has been employed in support of heretical doc- 
trines is not proof that it is itself error. Orthodox Christians 
have not infrequently held it, supposing it was a necessary im- 
plication of Seripture. 

The texts appealed to in support of trichotomy may be very 
naturally understood in a dichotomous sense and some of them 
can be shown not to teach trichotomy. Probably the most com- 
mon trichotomic text is 1 Thess. 5:23, ‘‘And the very God of 
peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit 
and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of 
our Lord Jesus Christ.’’ This verse is intended to express the 
idea of sanctification and preservation of the whole being. The 
terms ‘‘spirit,’’ ‘‘soul,’’ and ‘‘body’’ are employed to express 
this idea of entireness. A further example of such a method 
of representing the whole being is found in Luke 10: 27: ‘*Thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy 
soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind.’’ Here 
four terms are employed to express entireness. But if they were 
regarded as enumerating the different elements of man’s con- 
stitution, as trichotomists suppose is done in Paul’s statement, 
then Jesus here goes a step further and teaches tetrachotomy. 
Another text relied upon to support trichotomy is Heb. 4:12: 
‘*For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than 
any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of 
soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner 
of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’’ It is assumed that 
here joints and marrow imply the body and therefore with the 
words ‘‘soul’’ and ‘‘spirit’’ added trichotomy is taught. But 
if such a method is to be followed, consistency requires that we 
include ‘‘heart’’ at the end of the verse. Thus again we would 
have four-foldness, or tetrachotomy instead of trichotomy. The 
intent of the verse is not to enumerate the elements of the human 
constitution, but to show the penetrating power of God’s Word. 
If soul and spirit are significant of different elements, why not 
also joints and marrow? But as it is certain that joints and 
marrow are merely different forms of the same substance, so it 
is reasonable to think of soul and spirit ag different aspects or 
relations of one and the same substance. Other texts assumed 


288 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


to support trichotomy furnish no better proof of the theory than 
do the foregoing ones. 

In the common English usage soul and spirit are without 
distinction of meaning, and after naming the corresponding 
words in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, Dr. Hodge says, ‘‘These 
words all designate one and the same thing. They are constantly 
interchanged’’ (Systematic Theology, Vol. Il, p. 48). That 
they are used interchangeably may be known by a comparison 
of texts where they occur. Contrary to the theory under con- 
sideration, xvetua (pnewma), as well as wuyn (psuche), 
is used of the brute creation (Hecl. 3:21, LXX). Also 
woyn (psuche) is ascribed to God, who certainly does not 
have the nature of the animal. The disembodied spirits of the 
dead are called wuyn (psuche), or souls (Rev. 6:29). It is the 
soul that sins (Lev. 4:2), and God commands to love the Lord 
‘‘with all thy soul’’ (Luke 10:27). It is the highest part in 
man and to it are referred the highest exercises of religion. It 
is the soul that is lost through sin. ‘‘ What shall it profit a man, 
if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?’’ (Mark 
8:36). The soul then is not the mere animal life of the body, 
but that which may be lost after the body is dead. 

The element of truth in trichotomy is its recognition of dif- 
ferent aspects of man’s inner being. Although the terms ‘‘soul’’ 
and ‘‘spirit’’ do not represent distinct substances of human 
nature, they have value as do also ‘‘heart’’ and ‘‘mind’”’ in 
representing the higher spiritual nature in its different relations 
and powers or faculties. To repudiate the distinction of soul 
and spirit as factors is not to deny the distinction in faculties 
of man’s psychic nature. In conclusion, then, we say there is 
no proof in the Bible or science that man is threefold. Dichotomy 
is both reasonable and Scriptural, but that man is more than 
twofold can not be proved and is not required by any truth of 
Christianity. 

3. How Man Is Superior to the Brute—With the repudiation of 
the theory that man possesses a distinct element in his nature 
that differentiates him from the brute, the question may well 
be asked, what is the distinctive mark of man? It is evident 
he is immeasurably superior to the brute. All must admit this. 
This superiority is such that he can not have been evolved from 
the brute. Doubtless because of our ignorance due to inability 


ORIGIN AND NATURE OF MAN 289 


to communicate with brutes it is impossible to draw an exact 
line between them, other than that man is immeasurably superior 
to the brutes because created in God’s image. We can safely 
affirm the general distinction that the powers of man’s spirit 
are far above those of the brute. The popular theory that man 
has reason and the animals have instinct is not a satisfactory 
distinction, for animals have a certain measure of reason and 
man is not entirely without instinct. By instinet the new-born 
infant draws milk from the mother’s breast. 

A degree of intelligence exists in animals as well as in man, 
but man’s mind has capacities immeasurably higher than has 
that of the brute. Animals have certain general conceptions, 
memory, and some capacity for reasoning, though very little, 
if any, power of abstract thought. But man is capable of de- 
veloping reasoning powers whose capacities for abstract thought 
are almost without limitation. His higher intellectual qualities 
are shown by his higher activities. Animals evidently have a 
limited ability to communicate with each other, but man em- 
ploys elaborate languages—systems of arbitrary signs vocal and 
in writing by which he may exactly transmit his thought to 
another. Man alone makes fires, clothes himself, makes tools 
and machinery to accomplish his purposes, writes, draws pictures, 
writes histories, and improves his race. 

Feeling also exists in brutes as in man. The horse or dog 
may show great love and loyalty to its master. They have a 
certain measure of free-will, but the range of man’s freedom is 
far greater than that of brutes. Their freedom is within the 
limits of their natures, but man can choose contrary to his nature. 
He also has power to choose his supreme end and determine his 
character accordingly. 

We have no evidence that brutes feel obligation to a power 
above their own race. But man has conscience which enables 
him to recognize acts as right or wrong, impels him to the right, 
and reproves him if he does wrong. Especially is he above the 
beasts in possessing a religious nature. He prays always and 
in all nations. This high capacity of man’s spirit is peculiar to 
him. In his capacity for indefinite intellectua] development, in 
his exalted freedom of will, in his moral nature and capacity 
for religion, he is truly created in the image of God. 


290 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Ill. The Origin of Souls 

The obscure question of the origin of the individual soul 
of each human being is not necessarily of practical consequence 
to theology. Yet all thoughtful minds are sooner or later con- 
fronted with it and in seeking its answer they have sometimes 
evolved theories that are contradictory to the Seriptures. If 
certain knowledge on this subject is impossible it is at least 
important that we avoid antiscriptural theories. Three theories 
have been held respecting the origin of souls. They are: first, 
preexistence; second, ereationism——that the soul of each person 
is immediately created of God; and third, traducianism—that 
souls are brought into being by the parents according to the 
natural laws of propagation. 

1. Theory of Preexistence—This theory assumes that men’s 
souls have an existence prior to their connection with physical 
bodies in this world. The theory was given prominence in the 
early church by its having been advocated by Origen, who bor- 
rowed it from Plato. It has been held in recent times by Kant, 
Julius Mueller, and Edward Beecher, but neither in ancient 
nor modern times has it ever been accepted by any large number 
of Christian believers. The theory supposes the souls of all men 
were created at the same time as that of Adam. 

Origen connects this theory of preexistence with the idea of 
transmigration of souls. He assumes all souls have passed 
through many former existences, or epochs, and are to pass 
through many more. In a previous existence souls have sinned 
and it is these sinful souls that are condemned to inhabit phy- 
sical bodies in this world. He attempts to account for varying 
degrees of natural sinfulness at birth on the supposition that 
some committed more or greater sins in a previous existence 
than did others. His main object in assuming preexistence was 
to account for varying degrees of native depravity. In objection 
it may be said all that needs to be accounted for in this respect 
may be better explained in other ways that are not at variance 
with the Bible. Especially, as has been remarked by Dr. H. 
C. Sheldon, ‘‘if souls had such a decisive moral development in 
a previous state as the theory implies, it is reasonable to assume 
that they had also an appreciable intellectual development. 
Why then is no sign of that development to be found in the em- 
bodied subject? Why is the infant so utterly destitute of every 


ORIGIN AND NATURE OF MAN 291 


trace of intellectual maturity, and obliged to gain every item of 
knowledge by the hard road of tuition and trial?’’ 

Further reason for repudiating the theory of preexistence 
of souls is the entire lack of Scriptural support. It is an un- 
scriptural assumption. A still stronger objection is the Pauline 
teaching that the sinfulness of the race is a consequence of the 
sin of Adam (Rom. 5:12). Degrees of natural or inborn deprav- 
ity are entirely consistent with the idea of inheritance of moral 
tendencies. The preexistence theory affirms pure individualism 
—race sinfulness is excluded. Still further it may be objected 
to preexistence that if in a previous epoch souls committed sin 
for which they are now punished they must have been conscious 
and, if so, as A. H. Strong has reasoned, “‘it is inexplicable that 
we should have no remembrance of such preexistence.”’ 

2. Theory of Creationism.—That human souls are the products 
of immediate divine creation was the view of Jerome and Pela- 
gius and has since been held by the Roman Catholic and Re- 
formed theologians. This theory affirms that God creates out of 
nothing each individual soul when its body is formed, either at 
conception or at birth. Its advocates claim for it both Scriptural 
and rational support. 

They cite certain statements of Scripture that affirm God is 
the creator and father of the human spirit. ‘‘The spirit shall 
return unto God who gave it’’ (Eecl. 12:7). God is said to 
form ‘‘the spirit of man within him’’ (Zech, 12:1). These and 
other texts similarly attributing man’s soul to God may support 
creationism, but they do not necessarily do so, for it is conceivable 
that he gives the spirit mediately through natural processes as 
he is said to give us our daily bread. Also he may be said to 
‘“‘form’’ the spirit according to natural laws as it is said he 
forms the body of the infant in the womb of the mother. A 
stronger text for creationism is Heb. 12:9, where God is called 
‘‘the Father of our spirits’’ in antithesis to ‘‘fathers of our 
flesh.’? But this is not conclusive proof, because ‘‘fathers’’ is 
used with such latitude in the Bible that it may mean merely 
that he was the original author of the human spirit much as 
Abraham was the father of the Israelitish people. The antithesis 
may be regarded as between the general relation of man’s spirit 
to the Divine Spirit and the relation of us to our parents. 

It is also urged that distinct individuality of children, especi- 


292 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ally in extreme cases like Abraham Lincoln, whose family was 
obscure, can be accounted for only on the theory of creationism. 
Traducianists, however, believe such examples of marked per- 
sonality may be fully accounted for on the ground of a law of 
variation. Other objections are made to creationism. If crea- 
tionism be true, then human parents beget only the lower part 
of their child; and the higher element, the real person, is not 
from them. Then the human race is only a race with respect 
to the physical and in the highest sense they are only an order 
of beings. The beast, then, has higher powers of propagation 
than man, for he begets in his own image. Also if creationism 
is true it is difficult to show that God is not the creator of sin- 
ful or depraved souls. It may be reasoned that God creates 
the soul pure at the time of conception and it becomes depraved 
during the embryonic period as a result of its close connection 
with the mother. Such a view would be objectionable to many, 
however, in that it represents depravity as being transmitted 
only by the mother. A still further objection sometimes urged 
is that it makes God a party to the begetting of illegitimate 
children. 

3. Theory of Traducianism.—This theory was held by Tertul- 
lian and Augustine, and is the belief of Lutherans, as well as 
of many eminent theologians of other bodies. It holds that souls 
are propagated rather than created, or that as the body is trans- 
mitted by the parents so is the soul, though not necessarily in 
the same manner. Adam’s soul was an immediate divine crea- 
tion, but since then the divine working is only mediate in the 
origination of souls. 

The Scriptures are appealed to in support of the theory. 
At the close of the six days of creation God is said to have 
rested from his creative work; therefore, it is reasoned, he does 
not now create souls. God has ‘‘made of one [blood omitted, 
R. V.] all nations of men’”’ (Acts 17:26). Aaron was ‘‘in the 
loins of his father [Abraham], when Melchisedec met him’’ 
(Heb. 7:10). These texts evidently refer to more than the bodies 
of men. Also it is reasoned from the analogy of lower nature 
that as vegetables and especially animals with minds propagate 
their kind and in no part are the product of immediate creation, 
so it is proper so to think of man. An objection often made 
against traducianism is that it lends support to the materialistic 


ORIGIN AND NATURE OF MAN 293 


view of the soul. But in reply it may be asked that if the soul 
or immaterial part of brutes can be propagated why can not 
that of men and in the same manner? An argument in support 
of such transmission is the fact that not only physical but mental 
and moral characteristics are known by observation to be trans- 
mitted from parent to offspring constantly. Transmission of 
moral depravity is very noticeable. Traducianism is especially 
harmonious with the Biblical doctrine of native depravity, and 
in this particular has distinct advantages over creationism. 

Doubtless most Christians who have any opinion on the sub- 
ject, hold either creationism or traducianism. But among the 
most careful thinkers even of the same schools of theological 
thought some hold one view and some the other. The view held 
of the mode of the transmission of depravity has a great influ- 
ence in determining the theory of the origin of souls that is 
accepted. Those holding the realistic theory find traducianism 
most harmonious with it. Those who hold representativism or 
the federal headship theory of depravity incline to creationism. 
Others are divided. To our thought the traducian view seems 
to have most in its favor. But that we do not pretend to be 
wise above that which is written we refrain from dogmatism. 
Those who hold creationism will not be harmed by it even if it is 
erroneous, if it ean be held without affirming that God sanctions 
every act of procreation and that he creates sinful souls, and if 
it is held without a denial of native depravity. Likewise it 
is important to those holding traducianism that they guard 
against any materialistic view of the soul, the realistic theory of 
depravity, and the depravity and guilt of the human nature of 
Christ. Such a guarded theory of traducianism would probably 
not be harmful even though it were untrue. 


IV. The Question of Immortality 


1. Man’s Body Created Mortal— The popular notion that 
man’s body was originally inherently immortal is not supported 
by Scripture nor reason. As created he was naturally mortal. 
His physical constitution was like that of the animals, which in 
no case are said to be immortal. Like them, his body was made 
of the dust, and was therefore subject to change and dissolution, 
by which it would return to dust again. 

That man’s body was created essentially mortal is evident 


294 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


from the Scriptures. In its present condition it is commonly 
represented as ‘‘your mortal body’’ (Rom. 6:12; 8:11). That 
it was originally mortal is certain, because it was made of tem- 
poral matter, dust (Gen. 2:7). It was given natural food to 
sustain it, which would have been superfluous if it was immortal 
(Gen. 1:29). Adam was given work to do to provide that food 
for himself (Gen. 2:15). Marriage was instituted and propaga- 
tion of the race was enjoined (Gen. 1:28), which is not true of 
the angels, who are immortal (Luke 20:35, 36). Also the 
tree of life was provided; by eating the fruit of which his life 
was continued and death counteracted (Gen. 3: 22). 

‘‘But the crowning proof that man was originally mortal is 
the fact that he was ‘made’ ‘a little lower than the angels’ 
(Psa. 8:4, 5 with Heb. 2:6, 7). In what sense was man lower 
than the angels? Not morally or spiritually, for in these respects 
man was in God’s image, and surely the angels are not higher 
than God is. What, then, does the expression mean? In Heb. 
1:7 we read that God ‘maketh his angels spirits,’ that they 
are ‘all ministering spirits’ (v. 14). Jesus plainly states that 
‘a spirit hath not flesh and bones’ (Luke 24:39). Therefore 
we conclude that man’s inferiority to angels consists in his limi- 
tations due to a physical body, while the angels are wholly spirit 
beings .... Now, according to the scripture cited in Psa 8: 4-8, 
man was ‘made’ in this inferior condition at the time when he 
was given universal dominion over God’s works, which shows 
clearly that his original condition physically was the same as now 
—not inherently immortal—and that no specific change took 
place in his bodily organism as a result of the fall’’ (F. G. Smith, 
What the Bible Teaches, pp. 54, 55). After quoting from the 
Psalms in Heb. 2:7 that man was made lower than the angels, 
the inspired writer also states in the ninth verse that Jesus was 
also ‘‘made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of 
death.’’ This clearly shows that man was created lower than the 
angels in the sense that they are wholly immortal while in his 
original constitution he was subject to death. 

Before the fall death was possible, but by the fall it became 
actual. Originally pain, injury, and disease were possible and 
if not prevented might lead to death, but God provided the fruit 
of the tree of life to counteract it. It was only when sin led to 


ORIGIN AND NATURE OF MAN 295 


expulsion from Eden and exclusion from the tree of life that 
death ceased to be a contingency and became a reality. 

2. The Soul Is Immortal—Endless existence is the uncondi- 
tional destiny of the soul. Its immortality is not determined 
by its character whether it be good or evil. it is created in the 
image of the eternal God and resembles him in its immortal 
quality. The fact of its immortality is evidence of its exalted 
dignity and therefore is of great significance in properly esti- 
mating the value of its interests in this hfe and in its future 
life. Except the soul lives forever, life is vain and without 
purpose. But as Longfellow has said: 


‘Life is real, life is earnest 

And the grave is not its goal; 
Dust thou art, to dust returnest, 
Was not spoken of the soul.’’ 


The Bible declares the soul is immortal. ‘‘For we know that 
if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a 
building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the 
heavens’’ (2 Cor. 5:11). ‘‘ We are confident, I say, and willing 
rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the 
Lord’’ (chap. 5:8). These verses teach that the soul continues 
to exist after the body dies, and inasmuch as conscious existence 
is better than unconsciousness they teach the future condition 
of the soul will be conscious existence. This is implied also in 
Phil. 1: 23, where the Apostle says that to depart from the body 
and be with Christ is far better. In Matt. 10:28 it is said, 
‘‘Hear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill 
the soul.’’ Immortality of the soul is also implied by many other 
texts, especially those which represent future blessedness or 
punishment as ‘‘everlasting.’’ Besides the proofs from Scrip- 
ture, the immortality of the soul may well be reasoned from the 
soul’s capacity for unlimited development, and also from an 
inalienable desire for unending existence. 


CHAPTER II 


ORIGINAL MORAL NATURE AND STATE OF MAN 


I. Primitive Man of a Lofty Grade 


The Bible is the sole source of authority concerning the 
original grade and powers of man. Concerning these, two ex- 
tremes have been advocated. On the one hand he hag been 
regarded as possessing absolute perfection, and on the other 
hand it has been held, by theistic evolutionists especially, that 
even after he became man he wag of so low a grade that many 
millenniums were required for his development to his present 
stage. The Scripture evidently represents primitive man as 
having been created in a state of maturity and perfection, not 
in one of infancy. 

1. Constituted Relatively Perfect.—When man, the final product 
of God’s creative effort, had been made, ‘‘God saw everything 
that he had made, and, behold, it was very good’’ (Gen. 1: 
31). The sense in which all things are here said to have 
been good is that they were adapted to the purpose for 
which they were created. They were good in the sense that an 
automobile that will carry a reasonable load at a fair speed is 
said to be good. A watch is said to be good if it correctly 
measures time. Its case may not be made of the finest gold, 
nor beautifully engraved, but if it keeps time it is a good watch 
because it is made to keep time. Man was good in the sense 
that he was so constituted physically, mentally, and morally as 
properly to fulfil the design of his creation. 

The sense in which man’s physical being was originally 
‘‘go0d’’ igs doubtless not to be understood as that of absolute 
perfection. It is enough to suppose it was good for the use 
that was to be made of it. It was adapted to the capacities of 
the soul within in its ability to execute what the mind might 
conceive. It was good also in that it was free from disease 
and in good health. It possessed strength sufficient for all duties 
devolving upon it. It was equal to any reasonable demand that 
would be made upon it. We have no reason for believing it was 
the body of a giant, that it never became weary, that it possessed 
angelic beauty, that it was not susceptible to hunger, pain, or 


wounds. As previously stated, it was subject to death and decay, 
296 


ORIGINAL MORAL NATURE AND STATE OF MAN 297 


although a preventive of death was provided in the tree of life. 

Intellectually, primitive man must have been of a high grade. 
Inbecility or an infantile mind is incompatible with his moral 
responsibility and probation. It is doubtful whether a mature 
body with only the mind of an infant could have survived. The 
naming of the animals by Adam before the woman was made 
implies a large degree of mentality, especially when it is remem- 
bered that the names of things were formerly given to describe 
their characteristics. It has been reasoned that in order thus to 
name every member of the animal kingdom Adam must have had 
immediate perception of their qualities. But we need to beware 
lest we carry this line of reasoning further than the facts 
warrant. It is doubtful whether Adam named all the hundreds 
of thousands of different species of animals. Gen. 2:19 states 
that God ‘‘formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the 
air; and brought them unto Adam.’’ The text may well be 
understood to teach, not that all were brought, but only that 
some of them were brought. The original word translated ‘‘all’’ 
in verse 20 is often not to be understood as all in the absolute 
sense. Considering that the number of species of animals 
numbers two or three millions (according to Darwin), if he had 
named one each minute for several hours daily he would have 
been engaged for a few years in naming them. Probably he 
named only the more common animals which inhabited the garden 
of Eden. If so, the naming of the animals is no proof of super- 
human intelligence. 

It is evident from what is revealed in the Scriptures that 
his intelligence was of a high order, but we have no proof that 
Adam’s perceptive faculties were such that he perfectly per- 
ceived all that came before him, that his memory was absolutely 
retentive, that his judgments were always correct, or that in his 
reasoning he always passed accurately from premise to con- 
elusion. In other words, he was not infinite in his intellectual 
powers. Absolute perfection does not belong to the finite. We 
may not unreasonably believe that primitive man was at least 
equal intellectually to the most brilliant and balanced minds 
living today. Certainly he was originally so constituted intellec- 
tually that he was morally responsible. 

As to his moral nature, the statement that man was originally 
good must mean that he was not naturally inclined to evil, that 


298 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


his conscience distinguished the right, impelled to it, and would 
have reproved for wrong-doing. His disposition was to love God 
supremely and in relation to others to hold an unselfish attitude. 
His will was efficient to choose that which he should do. 

2. Not a Barbarian.—Much has been said by those who assume 
man is a product of evolution of successive stone, bronze, and 
iron ages. These are a necessary assumption to the theory of 
evolution, but as often held are without ground in facts. Doubt- 
less particular tribes or nations have passed through such 
stages corresponding to their progress from savagery to eivili- 
zation, but there is no proof that a stone age prevailed among 
all nations at the same time. Many centuries ago the inhabitants 
of certain parts of Europe seem to have used implements and 
weapons of stone only. But in the time of men still living cer- 
tain tribes of American Indians were yet in their stone age. 
Savages in some parts of the world still use flint instruments. 
The facts of history indicate that the stone, bronze, and iron ages 
have all subsisted contemporaneously. It is as illogical for men 
today to reason that because certain tribes of primitive men 
were barbarians all were so, as it would be for one in the distant 
future to reason that because certain African tribes of the 
present were illiterate and barbarous therefore no civilization 
existed in other parts of the world at this time. It is conceivable 
that primitive man enjoyed a simple civilization and that certain 
tribes degenerated and were later recovered. 

The Bible clearly represents Adam as being far above a state 
of barbarism. He was created in a high state of intelligence and 
morals. Christians need no further proof than this. The state- 
ments of Seripture are also corroborated by traditions of all 
nations of a past golden age. Also the most ancient monuments 
and written records of man known today indicate a high civili- 
zation. The pyramids of Egypt antedate history, yet who can 
believe such colossal works requiring so much ingenuity, so much 
well-organized labor, and such vast wealth could be the work of 
barbarians? Equally early were the ancient Accadians, who, 
as has been learned in recent years from the Chaldean and Assy- 
rian inscriptions, were a highly civilized people. History shows 
the most ancient peoples were civilized. This well agrees with 
the teaching of Scripture that man was originally civilized, but 
has lost that civilization in a measure. 


ORIGINAL MORAL NATURE AND STATE OF MAN 299 


Another argument against primal barbarism is the lack of 
evidence that any savage people have ever lifted up themselves 
without civilizing influences being exerted from without. His- 
tory shows that Egypt obtained its civilization from the Hast, 
where according to the Bible the race had its origin. Greece 
derived its civilization from Egypt and Phoenicia, Rome from 
Greece and Phoenicia, other parts of Europe from Italy, America 
from Europe, and now the Far East, and especially the South 
Sea Islands, and Africa are becoming civilized through Europe 
and America. 

Progress in the arts, science, and invention is not to be con- 
fused with that simple civilization that was the condition of 
primitive man. Certainly great advancement has been made 
in these things in modern times. Primitive man was civilized 
in that he was in a high state intellectually, morally, and reli- 
giously. Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle never saw an aeroplane, 
and were ignorant of the wonders of electricity, but how few 
of those who are acquainted with such things nearly approach 
to the great intelligence and reasoning ability of these men? 
Doubtless most of the world’s greatest philosophers, moralists, 
and religious leaders were ignorant of modern inventions. It 
is in the sense in which these men were in an advanced state 
that we may properly affirm primitive man was not a barbarian. 

But the question may be asked, ‘‘How did man deteriorate 
into barbarism?’’ That such deterioration is possible is shown 
by the experience of certain colonies of enlightened people who 
have settled in isolated and frontier regions where without reli- 
gious and educational influences they have, in the course of two 
or three generations, sunk to a condition little better than 
savagery. Evidently in the course of many generations under 
the debasing influence of a sinful nature and evil practises 
barbarism may well have been the result. The Bible assigns as 
the cause of the degradation of men, their substitution of idolatry 
for the knowledge and worship of the true God. History shows 
that true civilization results from the exaltation of pure religion. 
Likewise degradation has usually followed the rejection of the 
worship of the true God. 

3. In the Divine Image.—No truth relative to man’s original 
moral nature is more important than that announced when his 
creation was determined upon. ‘‘And God said, Let us make 


300 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


man in our image, after our likeness .... So God created man 
in his own image’’ (Gen. 1:26, 27). An attempt has been made 
to distinguish between the image and the likeness of God. 
Augustine understood image to relate to the intellectual nature, 
and likeness to the moral nature. In the doctrine of the 
scholastics the image of God includes the natural attributes of 
man and the likeness the moral similarity to God. Still others 
have supposed the image of God was what man was by creation 
and that likeness referred to his acquired characteristics, or 
moral qualities resulting from his conduct. But there is no good 
ground in the reading of the text either in the English trans- 
lation or in the original for any such distinction. The most 
natural and evidently the true meaning of ‘‘image’’ and “‘like- 
ness’’ is an image that is like God. 

Man is in the divine image, not merely in a particular aspect, 
but in a complex of characteristics of his nature. Certainly he 
is not in the divine image as to his physical being, for God is a 
purely spiritual being without corporeity. Therefore we must 
look to man’s soul for the divine image. God is a spirit, and 
man’s soul is a spirit. In this broad sense man is in God’s 
image. But in various particulars the human spirit has qualities 
similar to the divine Spirit. Spirit implies in both God and man 
personality with the characteristics that constitute one a person 
—intellect, sensibility, and will. It is of these high qualities that 
the essential image of God consists. 

But for religion and in the Bible the important aspect of 
the divine image is the moral nature of man which is possible 
through his spiritual and personal nature. This moral image 
is represented in the Bible as having been lost through sin. This 
loss was not by deprivation of any essential faculty or portion 
of human nature, but by derangement or weakening of the facul- 
ties in respect to moral conduct. In the work of regeneration 
the divine image is described as recreated or restored. ‘‘Put 
on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness 
and true holiness’’ (Eph. 4:24). ‘‘And have put on the new 
man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that 
ereated him’’ (Col. 3:10). 


II. Conscience 
The reality of conscience is generally admitted, and though 


ORIGINAL MORAL NATURE AND STATE OF MAN 301 


, 


the term ‘‘conscience’’ is very much used, yet few words are so 
differently understood or so much misunderstood as is this. It 
is used by some in a broad sense to inelude functions of both 
the intellect and sensibilities, while others use it in the restricted 
sense aS pertaining only to the sensibilities. Conscience is not 
a separate faculty of the soul, as are intellect, sensibility, or will. 
It is rather a particular mode in which these separate faculties 
act. The operation of conscience includes both the intellectual 
element and the emotional element. It is these acting in the 
realm of morals. 

Men are naturally endowed with the ability to recognize a 
moral quality of actions, to judge as to the rightness or wrong- 
ness of a particular action, and they are conscious of a feeling of 
obligation to do what is conceived to be right and of restraint 
from the wrong. In relation to a particular course of action 
conscience (1) determines whether the course is right or wrong 
in relation to its accepted standard of right, (2) feels a sense of 
ought or ought not according as the course is right or wrong, 
and (3) feels approval or remorse according as the course judged 
to be right is followed or not. Conscience then may be said to 
have three distinct functions—(1) discriminating, (2) impulsive, 
(3) retributive. H. C. Sheldon has said, ‘‘Conscience is in- 
clusive of three distinct elements: a perception of moral distine- 
tions, a sense of obligation to the right, as opposed to the wrong, 
and a feeling of self-approbation, or self-condemnation according 
as the act corresponds to the judgment of right and wrong.’’ 

1. The Discriminating Function.—This is the intellectual phase 
of conscience. It is the exercise of the judgment in matters of 
moral conduct. In this aspect conscience is not to be thought of 

_as a sort of moral instinct which serves as an inerrant guide 
concerning abstract right and wrong. It does not act irrespective 
of rational thought. As men are not born infallible mathe- 
maticians, so they are not born infallible moralists. But as they 
are born with a capacity for recognizing the relation of numbers, 
so they are born with a moral constitution intrinsically suited 
to recognize moral distinctions. It is natural for a mother to 
love her child. If, however, along with her own new-born child 
another is presented to her, her natural parental affection will 
not enable her to know which is her own, but when she knows 
which belongs to her at once her mother-love discriminates 


302 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


between it and the other child. Likewise it is not the conscience 
that determines what is right and wrong abstractly, but when 
the standard of abstract right is furnished it, it has the ability 
to determine whether a particular act conforms to that standard. 

The discriminating function of conscience should not be con- 
founded with the moral intuition, or with that sense of justice 
and right that is in every person and is essential to the moral 
nature. Neither should we confound it with accepted law or 
the individual’s standard of right. Every person possesses an 
individual standard which he accepts as right. This standard is 
not determined by his own ¢éhoice, but is what he sincerely 
believes is right. It is usually the result of intuitive ideas, the 
influences of education and society, reasoning, and divine reve- 
lation. Though this standard is not conscience, yet it is the 
ground upon which conscience determines the rightness or wrong- 
ness of an act. Only to the extent that this personal standard 
agrees with absolute abstract right will the conscience prove a 
dependable guide to that which is right in its own nature. But 
that personal standard is not always conformed to that which is 
truly right. It is determined to a very great extent by influences 
from without, especially the teaching to which one listens. If one 
believes the ceremonial law of Moses is binding upon Christians 
and that he should therefore observe the seventh day, Saturday, 
as a day of rest from all physical labor, when he is confronted 
with the question of whether or not he should perform a certain 
act involving labor on that day his conscience will promptly 
discriminate against its performance, even though it is not wrong 
in itself. 

2. Impulsive Power.—A second function of conscience is the 
feeling of duty or sense of obligation to do what is conceived to 
be right and to refrain from what is believed to be wrong. In 
this aspect the reality of conscience is clearer than in its dis- 
criminating capacity, because this feeling of obligation is more 
distinctly cognizable and therefore more impressive. As the dis- 
criminating function of conscience was shown to be the intel- 
lectual faculty operating in the field of morals, so the impulsive 
function is the emotional faculty acting in the same field and 
not itself a separate faculty. In this respect conscience is a feel- 
ing of obligation to the right and restraint from the wrong which 
has its basis in the moral nature. It is not merely a feeling of 


ORIGINAL MORAL NATURE AND STATE OF MAN 303 


desire for the pleasurable and of aversion for the painful as 
has sometimes been affirmed. Certain evidence of this is that 
often men freely choose the path of hardship, suffering, and even 
death because they feel it is the path of duty. 

But what is this sense of obligation? The question is more 
easily asked than answered and yet every one knows what it is. 
It is not capable of logical definition, and can be truly known 
only by experience. The feeling of obligation impels one to duty, 
but does not compel. It in no wise interferes with freedom. It 
may be antagonized or favored by other impulses, affections, 
appetites, and passions. It is because of this that conscience is 
weakened through depravity. If inquiry be made as to whence 
eame this feeling of obligation or how we came to possess the 
sense of ‘‘ought,’’ it must be said we have not acquired it by 
education, but that it is native or inborn. The feeling of obliga- 
tion arises aS soon as one comes to the age of moral responsibility. 
It is a part of the human constitution, as is reason or memory. 
Here is positive proof that man has a moral nature. The reason 
men feel they ‘‘ought’’ is because they are so constituted that 
they ‘‘ought.’’ They have the sense of obligation because of the 
fact that they are under obligation. 

The sense of duty has its ground in two facts. The first 
cause of obligation is found in man’s nature, the second in his 
relationship to God. It belongs to personality to feel a sense of 
obligation. All the elements of personality are indicative of 
obligation. Personality includes reason, sensibility, and will. 
Reason implies ability to Judge between the normal and abnormal 
and that ability implies obligation to judge as correctly as pos- 
sible. Sensibility, or the ability to feel, implies the capacity 
to feel according to that which is judged to be normal, and feel- 
ing gives impulse to action. Free-will to choose between a 
worthy and an unworthy course of action is ground for the 
feeling of obligation to choose the former. Therefore the sense 
of ought is a necessary consequence of personality. A second 
and still more important ground of. obligation is the perfect 
moral nature of God. Because we are made in his image as per- 
sonal beings, that very perfectness in God can demand nothing 
less in us than conformity to the same standard of righteousness. 

In the impulsive aspect of conscience it holds a position of 
authority. As soon as the intellectual function of conscience 


304 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


has determined what is right according to one’s accepted stan- 
dard, then at once conscience begins to function in impelling to 
the right. It takes the place of authority, from which it will 
not be moved and stedfastly demands that the right be followed. 
Possibly one has, through wrong influence, been led to accept a 
false standard of right, and consequently in a particular matter 
the discriminating function of conscience has judged that to be 
wrong which is not so in its nature, as in the question of re- 
fraining from labor on Saturday, to which reference has been 
made. Still conscience will as stedfastly require compliance with 
that decision as if it were wrong in its nature or God now for- 
bade us to labor on Saturday. Conscience is not an infallible 
guide to that which is intrinsically right, yet one is always 
obligated to obey his conscience and failure to do so would be 
sinful. To fail to comply with conscience would be to violate 
the sense of duty, and to hold a rebellious attitude of heart 
toward God, neither of which could possibly be right. Such a 
violation of conscience must result in disapproval by oneself 
as well as by God because of the attitude toward him. 

3. Retributive Aspect.—After conscience hag discriminated as 
to the rightness or wrongness of an act, has impelled to the 
right and restrained from the wrong and the will has decided 
for the right or the wrong, even yet there remains a third 
function of the conscience—the feeling of approval or remorse 
according as the course chosen was esteemed to be the right or 
the wrong. This third function of conscience is fully as real as 
are the others. What can be more real than the lashings of a 
guilty conscience? 

This remorse for sin and approval for righteousness are not 
to be confounded with fear of punishment and hope of reward. 
Doubtless these are normally accompaniments of remorse and 
approval of conscience, yet evidently in some instances the latter 
are felt by those who do not believe in future retribution. When 
Judas became fully awakened to the vileness of his deed in be- 
traying his Master for money his remorse was so great that he 
ended his hfe, thus at once bringing upon himself retribution 
for sin in the other world. His act can be accounted for only on 
the ground of extreme remorse of conscience. This is a common 
feeling today, not only to those who have committed great crimes, 


ORIGINAL MORAL NATURE AND STATE OF MAN 305 


but even to those with tender consciences who have disregarded 
the voice of conscience in lesser matters. 

Also it was not a mere hope of future blessedness that afford- 
ed comfort to the apostle Paul when at the close of his life he 
remembered that he had fought a good fight and kept the faith. 
The approval of his conscience afforded him additional pleasure. 
It not only enabled him to feel God was pleased with him, but 
thereby he was enabled to respect himself as he could not have 
done otherwise. 

It is reasonable to assume that primitive man was possessed 
of truer moral intuitions and a fuller divine revelation and, as 
a consequence, of a better standard of abstract right, so that the 
decisions of his conscience were more nearly correct than is 
true with men today. Also we may suppose his conscience was 
‘‘tender’’ in that it functioned efficiently in impelling to duty, 
as is not true of one today whose conscience is ‘‘seared.’’ Yet 
there is no more reason for supposing Adam had infinite knowl- 
edge of ethical principles than that he was infinite in other 
respects. Also it would evidently be contrary to the facts and 
too much to say that his sense of duty was so strong that he was 
always impelled to the right. 

In all three of its functions conscience becomes more efficient 
by its being heeded and fails to function to the extent it is 
neglected. Constant obedience to its dictates causes it to dis- 
criminate more truly and the sense of obligation to the right is 
in proportion to one’s constancy in what is believed to be duty. 


III. Free Agency 


1. The Question of Freedom Vital to Theology.—No systematic 
statement of Christian doctrine can be complete that is silent 
concerning the will. The question of free will has ever been re- 
garded as of the utmost importance to a correct understanding 
of the subjects of sin and grace. The view taken of the nature 
of the will is logically determinative of both theology and 
religion. The fact of freedom of choice is that which gives 
character to sin and virtue. If men’s wills are determined, sin 
is not reprehensible and goodness deserves no reward. Under 
a law of necessity moral character is impossible. 

The actual history of doctrine is evidence of the influence of 
the question of freedom on Christian thought. Consistent with 


306 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


its theory of freedom, Calvinism has held a monergistie view 
of salvation. Likewise, Arminianism has consistently affirmed 
that because the will has power of alternative choice, therefore 
salvation is synergistic, or is the result of man’s choice as well 
as of God’s operation. Because of the recognition of its vital 
bearing on the fundamental truths of religion there has been 
in the past much controversy between Calvinists and Arminians 
concerning freedom. Doubtless there is at present less dis- 
position to controversy concerning this and other doctrinal 
differences between these opposing schools of thought. This 
change is probably due in a great measure to a modification of 
the extreme Calvinistic theories in the popular mind. Yet it 
would be a mistake to suppose the subsiding of controversy 
indicates that Calvinism has lost its real character. Though he 
does not advocate all the extreme views held in Edward’s time, 
yet Charles Hodge, whose Systematic Theology is representa- 
tive of present-day Calvinism, strongly defends the same 
objectionable features relative to freedom that have always 
characterized that system. 

2. Leading Theories of the Will—The various theories con- 
cerning the will may be grouped into three main classes— 
necessity, certainty, and alternativity. Necessity, or the denial 
of freedom, is usually held by all who deny a personal supreme 
being—atheists, dualists, materialists, and pantheists. These 
refer all events to either fate or chance. According to the doc- 
trine of fatalism all events are determined by a blind necessity 
called fate. No intelligent being is back of this necessity, but it 
is a compelling law of sequence to which all intelligent beings 
are subject and against which it is useless to struggle. This 
theory holds that what is to be will be, that no will can modify 
the ruling of fate and therefore the only proper attitude is sub- 
mission to it. Chance differs from fate but little. The chance 
theory assumes that things are as they are because they stood as 
good a chance to be so as any other way. Whether necessitarians 
refer the course of events to these, to the forces in matter, or to 
a ‘‘world soul,’’ as does the pantheist, common sense repudiates 
all their theories and rests securely in the inalienable conviction 
that man in the image of a personal God is free to choose between 
various alternatives, and that many things might have been dif- 
ferent from what they are if a different choice had been made. 


ORIGINAL MORAL NATURE AND STATE OF MAN 307 


The Calvinistic theory of the will is denominated ‘‘Cer- 
tainty’’ by Dr. Charles Hodge, one of its ablest modern advo- 
cates. Some Calvinistic theologians of the past have regarded it 
as being necessitarian, but those of the present affirm it is in 
harmony with the truest and highest freedom. We agree with 
the most careful thinkers whose minds have not been influenced 
by the acceptance of Calvinism that in spite of all the efforts 
by its supporters to prove the contrary it is pure necessitarian- 
ism. Only because of respect for the able defenders of it do 
We consider it deserving of consideration apart from the general 
classification of theories of necessity. Yet it is fundamentally 
different from the theories of necessity before named in that they 
substitute non-intelligent chance or fate for man’s free choice 
while the Calvinistic view makes the will of God the real deter- 
mining cause instead of the will of man. 

The common doctrine of Calvinists at present is that motive 
determines choice, and that choice is always and must be accord- 
ing to the strongest motive. To state the theory more in detail, 
it assumes that we do an act because we will to do it, but that 
we can will to do it only in harmony with our strongest motive, 
that this motive is determined by character and externa] influ- 
ences, and that these are ultimately determined by God so that 
all events will certainly come to pass as he has predestinated. 
It is held by its supporters that this theory is compatible with 
real human freedom, that according to it man chooses freely. 
But what is the nature of the freedom of this theory? It is free- 
dom only in one direction. It is freedom to do an act, but not 
freedom to refrain from doing it or to do something else. It is 
only such freedom as water has to flow in one direction between 
the banks of a river, or the hands of the clock to move round 
the dial when unobstructed. It amounts to nothing more than 
mechanical freedom as far as objective results are concerned. 
According to it the antecedent is absolutely determinative of 
the consequence. It admits of no power of choice between alter- 
natives. It holds that only one course is possible and that the 
will is so determined it must choose that course. 

The theory rests on the false assumption that motive, or in- 
ducement, is absolutely determinative of choice, and that choice 
is always according to the strongest motive. Motive may furnish 
a ground for or influence in choice, but no proof can be adduced 


308 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


that it determines choice. If it could be shown that motive does 
absolutely determine one’s course, then choice would be without 
its character of freedom and necessitarianism would certainly 
follow. As to the second assumption, how shall we know what 
is the strongest motive? If it be answered, the motive that ac- 
cords with the choice, then the theory depends for support on 
reasoning in a circle. The argument must be that we know a 
particular choice is made because it is determined by the 
strongest motive, and we know that motive to be strongest 
because it is according to the choice made. Such argument 
proves nothing. : 

The third theory of the will, the theory of alternativity is 
that which we conceive to describe true freedom. The generic 
idea of freedom is freedom from restraint. This theory holds 
not only that man is unrestrained to volitionate in one direction, 
but that his will is without restraint in every direction. It defines 
will as an either-causal power, a power of alternativity. It has 
power of first cause. It really chooses one of several possible 
courses. It is a power both to and from an act. It is a power 
of ‘‘contrary choice,’’ as the more common phrase states it. The 
will is not restrained, but its volitions are not therefore mere 
chance as the Calvinist charges. Dr. Whedon has well defined 
the will as follows: ‘‘ Will is the power of the soul by which it is 
the conscious author of an intentional act’’ (Whedon on the 
Will, p. 15). 

3. Proofs of Free Will—The first reason for believing man 
has power of alternative choice is the fact that it is a spontaneous 
impression of all men. They know it intuitively, and like other 
intuitions it will naturally be accepted unless the mind is con- 
strained to believe its opposite by a false philosophy. But as 
with other intuitive truths, when the restraint of false reason- 
ing is broken by diverting the mind to other things one at once 
unconsciously acts on the ineradicable conviction that he has 
either-causal power. This conviction is so deep-seated that men 
of every degree of intelligence know they are free. 

A second proof of freedom is the facts of conscience. The 
consciousness of moral obligation implies belief in freedom. One 
must have power to do or not to do an act if he is responsible 
for it. If he has power to do a deed of evil, but no power to 
refrain, he does not deserve penalty for doing it; or if he has 


ORIGINAL MORAL NATURE AND STATE OF MAN 309 


not power to refrain from a good deed, but only to do it, he 
deserves no reward for it. Such necessitated acts have no moral 
quality. But man has a settled conviction that he ‘‘ought’’ and 
‘fought not’’; therefore he is free to choose. To say a man 
should be punished for doing what he has no power to refrain 
from doing is repulsive to his highest sense of justice, and he 
instinctively feels that any ruler who so deals with his subjects 
is a cruel tyrant. Freedom is an indispensable condition of 
moral agency. 

If man is determined in his acts he is not an agent, but 
only an instrument. But it is constantly assumed that he is a 
free agent. If he commits a murder he is punished, But if his 
will is determined it is as unreasonable to sentence a man to 
death or a long term of imprisonment as for the court to decide 
that the weapon used to commit the crime shall be sentenced to 
be broken to pieces as a punishment on it for its action in the 
murder. The common sense of mankind would unite in regard- 
ing such procedure with a mere weapon as useless and ridiculous, 
and it as stedfastly differentiates between instruments and men 
by attributing to men freedom and personal responsibility for 
their acts. 

A third argument in support of a real freedom of the will 
is the truth of deliberation. Very often when one is confronted 
with the necessity of choosing a course of action, a positive de- 
cision is intentionally postponed for more mature consideration 
of the subject before the final choice is precipitated. If the will 
is free to choose only one of several courses, if it has no power 
of alternative choice, if the event has been made certain by an 
efficient eternal decree of God and the will of man is so deter- 
mined that the choice will be according to that decree; then 
deliberation is a waste of time, man’s deep-seated disposition to 
think before he acts is a lie stamped on his nature, and it is a 
mark of wisdom and consistency for one to decide every question 
at once without useless deliberation, for according to the theory 
he can not decide wrongly inasmuch as what is to be will be 
and no amount of consideration will change the ultimate de- 
cision. But we know such reasoning is not true, and all unite 
in respecting those who are sufficiently deliberate in their de- 
cisions to choose wisely. 

4. Objections to Free Will Answered.—The principle of causal- 


310 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ity is often cited by necessitarians in objecting to free will as 
we have defined it. They sometimes state their argument in 
syllogistic form as follows: Every event must have a cause. 
Volition is an event. Therefore, it has a cause. We can very 
readily admit all that is here stated. But when it is assumed 
that this cause is of such a nature that it may not have been 
also the cause of another event we disagree. In this the objector 
begs the question. The cause of the event or volition is free 
will, which may have put forth a different volition than it did. It 
is not such a cause as is the knife in the hand of a murderer, 
but is rather as the power of cheice to commit the crime. The 
objector fails to distinguish between an agent and an inter- 
mediate or instrumental cause. If on this principle of causality 
every volition must have a cause, and, as the necessitarian con- 
tends, that cause can be the cause of only one event, then free- 
dom in God when he created the universe is excluded. If his 
volition to create had a cause that could act only in the one di- 
rection, then there is no freedom and all things are the result 
of necessitated evolution. But even the Calvinist holds will in 
God is an either-causal power. If then his argument from 
causality is found to be untrue when applied to God, why as- 
sume that will in man also is not a pluripotent cause? We affirm 
that will is a power of alternativity which man shares with God, 
a power to create out of nothing as far as subjective determina- 
tions are concerned. Therefore it is idle for the necessitarian 
to object that an event is causeless if another event might as 
well have been if so willed. The will is first cause and needs 
no determining, but is determiner. 

The foregoing is also the answer to Edward’s infinite series 
ebjection. This objection endeavors to show the idea of self- 
determination of the will involves the absurdity that the will 
must determine itself to will to determine itself to will to deter- 
mine itself to will endlessly. It takes for granted the point in 
dispute in assuming that the will must be determined and over- 
looks the fact that the will does not even so much as determine 
itself, but is the determiner. An example may make the objec- 
tion more easily grasped. A man chooses to ask God for salva- 
tion. The objector says his will is so determined that he chooses, 
and that if not determined then it must determine itself, but 
this is an act and so must be the result of a preceding volition to 


ORIGINAL MORAL NATURE AND STATE OF MAN 311 


determine itself and the process must be repeated indefinitely. 
But the objector’s puzzle is no puzzle at all. He errs in assum- 
ing that if the will is not determined it must determine itself. 
It neither determines itself nor is determined, but is itself the 
determiner, and the supposed infinite series has not so much as 
a beginning. 

A third objection to free will, as we have defined it, is an 
argument from divine prescience. It is reasoned that if God 
foreknows all human volitions, then those volitions are certain, 
and it is assumed that if certain they must be necessary. We 
also affirm that God foreknows all volitions and that they are 
certain. What will be, will be. None can dispute this. All 
future events will be in one way and not in two. At one time 
all events that have ever taken place in the whole universe or 
that are yet to take place were future and certain. They were 
eertain whether God foreknew them or not. If their certainty 
implies their necessity, as the determinist holds, then not only 
the volitions of men, but also those of God, were determined, 
because his future volitions were as certain as were ours. There- 
fore*to identify certainty with necessity leads inevitably to 
universal fatalism. This must be the result regardless of the 
question of divine prescience. This, like other arguments for 
determinism, leads to complete necessitarianism and proves our 
contention that the former is practically identical with the latter. 

Such an outcome is evidence that something is unsound in 
this objection from foreknowledge. The error is not in affirm- 
ing prescience, but in assuming certainty is the same as neces- 
sity. To say an event will be is not to say it must be. An event 
is necessary only when no power to the contrary exists. A 
contrary power may exist, yet it may be certain that an event 
will be even though it may not or need not be. The power to 
the contrary, or free choice, excludes necessity, but not cer- 
tainty. Neither does the foreknowledge of an event cause it to 
be. The knowledge is according to or determined by the event, 
not the event by the knowledge. Knowledge is not a power of 
causation; therefore foreknowledge does not make events to be. 

Another objection made by determinists with very much con- 
fidence is that the divine government over the world is accord- 
ing to a predetermined plan, that it is derogatory to God to 
suppose he governs the world without a plan, and that he could 


512 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


not govern according to a plan unless he has absolute control 
over all wills by determination of their volitions. Freedomists 
also believe God had a purpose in creating the world and that 
he governs it in accordance with a plan that will accomplish 
that purpose. The point at which we take issue with the neces- 
sitarian is in his assumption that free will in the subjects of 
God’s government is incompatible with his governing according 
to a plan. We take exception to his notion of what constitutes 
government. As in some of his other objections he assumes the 
point to be proved in supposing God does not govern unless he 
controls all wills. We distinguish between the rule over things 
and the government of free beings. An efficient ruler in a civil 
government does not determine the wills of his subjects. Yet 
he may have a definite purpose and plan in his governing. He 
rules in the sense that he has power to hold his subjects aecount- 
able to his laws, and is sovereign as long as he is able thus to 
enforce obedience to his requirements. We deny that deter- 
mination of men’s wills is more honoring to God than his gov- 
ernment of free beings as we have described. He who is able 
to establish and maintain a government over men with free wills 
is ever accounted greater than one who merely operates a ma- 
chine. And the determinist’s theory amounts to reducing the 
subjects of God’s government to the condition of machinery. To 
think of God as being able to work out his plan by the govern- 
ment of free moral beings is to honor him immeasurably more 
than do those who deny him such power in support of what 
they are pleased to call divine sovereignty. 

5. Real Freedom.—The freedom thus far described is some- 
times called formal freedom to distinguish it from real freedom 
yet to be deseribed. Formal freedom igs concerned with the na- 
ture of the will or freedom of the will. In this sense we con- 
ceive man has a faculty of alternativity, an either-causal power, 
or a power to the contrary. His will is not determined to one 
course, but may choose any of several courses. Such a sense of 
freedom is the spontaneous impression of men, the testimony of 
conscience and of the common sense of mankind. 

But this formal freedom is not identical with the perfect 
freedom of Adam as is assumed by Pelagianism. That complete 
freedom is only possible through God’s grace. In describing 
real freedom we must anticipate the fact of depravity and 


ORIGINAL MORAL NATURE AND STATE OF MAN 313 


restoration through Christ, which are yet to be considered. 
There is a sense in which men are not naturally free. When 
Jesus spoke of freedom through the truth the opposing Jews 
objected that they were Abraham’s seed and therefore were 
never in bondage. But Jesus insisted that there was a freedom 
through the Son which was freedom ‘‘indeed’’ (John 8: 82-36). 
There is a bondage that consists in the soul’s being trammeled 
with a depravity of nature through sin. Through sinfulness of 
character the desires are for that which is sinful. This results 
in an inclination (not a determination) to evil. But through 
grace thig sinful nature may be changed so the heart is no 
longer inclined to evil. Those so changed are free indeed. 


IV. Original Righteousness 


1. Nature of Original Righteousness.—The question of original 
righteousness, or primitive holiness as it is sometimes called, is 
best understood in the light of its history. Four leading views 
of it have been held, the Romish, the Pelagian, the Augustinian, 
and that which we shall here set forth as the true view. One’s 
view of original righteousness is determined by one’s theory of 
depravity, and these must in turn determine his teaching con- 
cerning the nature of salvation. Because of this fact the sub- 
ject of original righteousness is not one of mere speculative 
interest, but has a vital bearing on the great subject of man’s 
salvation, as has been demonstrated in the history of the vari- 
ous theories of it. 

In the Roman Catholic view original righteousness consists 
not in a quality of Adam’s essential nature, but in a super- 
natural endowment added after he was created, which was in- 
tended to enable him to overcome temptations resulting from 
certain imperfections in his nature as originally constituted. 
But no proof can be given that man originally possessed such 
imperfections in his nature. Then the fall is regarded as only 
a loss of that added quality and his essential nature was un- 
changed. This theory supposes his own nature was neither holy 
before the fall nor depraved after the fall. Their idea of sal- 
vation ig in harmony with such an idea of what man was both 
before and after the fall. Such a superadded quality can not 
properly be called holiness. Pelagius, in his contention with 
Augustine, unfortunately went to the extreme of denying, not 


314 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


only Augustine’s view of native depravity, but natural deprav- 
ity of the nature in any sense. In logical consistency with that, 
he also denied original righteousness in Adam. The Augustin- 
ian anthropology holds, not only that the nature of men is 
totally depraved, but that depravity includes demerit and is 
punishable. Likewise it assumes original holiness in Adam had 
ethical value—that it was deserving of reward. Also as de- 
pravity is regarded as absolute determination to evil, so orig- 
inal holiness is held to have been a similar determination of 
Adam to righteousness. On the basis of these is built the doc- 
trine of imputation and that salvation is through divine election 
alone. In objection to this theory we affirm that as one today 
ean not be properly punished or have demerit because of that 
for which he is not responsible, so Adam could not have de- 
served reward for a nature which was his by divine creation. 

Whatever was the nature of primitive holiness in Adam it 
could not have had ethical quality in the sense that it merited 
reward. Desert of reward can exist only as the result of free 
choice of that which is right. In the nature of the case, at the 
moment of creation Adam had not yet made any such choices, 
so could not have desert of either good or evil; therefore he 
possessed no ethical quality of holiness. But this does not mean 
he was characterless, as Pelagians affirm. Holiness may exist 
in various aspects. In a godly life such as that of the spotless 
patriarch Joseph, or of Paul, there is a quality of holiness con- 
sisting in righteous actions. Such actions are the results of an 
inner life of holy motives and aspirations. These inner activ- 
ities are a second aspect of holiness, and because they are the 
outgrowth of choice have true ethical value. But back of this 
inner life is yet a third form of holiness—the nature with its 
spontaneous tendencies. 

Since ethical quality is excluded as being the nature of 
primitive holiness in Adam it must have consisted in a tendency 
of his nature to that which is good. This tendency to righteous- 
ness is to be clearly distinguished from a determination of his will 
to righteousness, which has been erroneously held by Calvinists. 
The reality of the distinction in moral tendencies of the natures 
of men is as certain as is the difference between the tendencies 
of the lion and the lamb. Evidently such a moral quality or 
tendency in the nature is possible. If an existing tendency to 


ORIGINAL MORAL NATURE AND STATE OF MAN 315 


evil can be displaced by a bent to righteousness through the 
operation of divine grace, certainly in man’s original creation 
God was able to implant in his nature a tendency to righteous- 
ness. If such tendencies may exist as a result of moral conduct, 
there is no reason why they may not exist as a result of creation. 

If no such tendencies really exist, then holiness inheres only 
in the quality of acts and not in character. Then we must 
believe there is no difference in the inner characters of the most 
devout saint and the most abandoned villain, but that they 
differ only in their deeds. But Jesus taught that the fruit is 
according to the tree. ‘‘The tree is known by his fruit.’’ The 
reason for the quality of the fruit is the nature of the tree, a 
quality which it has in itself even if it bore no fruit. So man’s 
deeds are according to his nature. This leaves no room for the 
denial of original moral character by Pelagianism, and neither 
does it favor Augustinianism if it is regarded as a tendency 
and not a determination of the nature to righteousness. If 
there be no moral character there can be no regeneration. 
Original righteousness then must have consisted in a tendency 
of Adam’s nature to holiness, and to this conception we may 
well add the conception of an indwelling of the Holy Spirit as 
he is in the fully redeemed through Christ. 

2. Proofs of Original Righteousness— The Scriptures teach 
that as good fruit is the product only of a good tree, so men’s 
good deeds are the result of goodness of character (Luke 6: 48- 
45). If men’s good acts are according to their character, cer- 
tainly the manifestations of goodness in God prove goodness 
of character in him. Man is said to have been originally created 
in God’s image, and this has already been shown to include 
moral likeness to God. Therefore man was made originally with 
a moral nature like God’s holy nature, which is proof of original 
holiness. Again it is said that when man was created he, with 
other things, was ‘‘very good’’ (Gen. 1:31). We have before 
shown that in man, who was a moral being, this statement includ- 
ed his moral nature. This statement implies that man had an 
original righteousness in the sense of a disposition to do good. 
Still another proof is found in the statement that ‘‘God hath 
made man upright’’ (Eceel. 7:29). In what sense was man made 
upright? Uprightness can be affirmed of man only in one of three 
senses—in physical posture, in uprightness of conduct, or in 


316 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


uprightness of moral character. The context shows the quota- 
tion refers not to man’s physical structure, but either wholly to 
his conduct or character. That it does not refer to his conduct is 
certain because the uprightness implied is one in which ‘‘God 
hath made man,’’ which was before man had performed either 
cvood or evil. The only sense left in which man could be properly 
said to have been created upright is in moral nature. To be up- 
right in original moral nature is to be righteous in moral nature. 
This is original righteousness. 


CHAPTER III 
FALL AND DEPRAVITY OF THE RACE 


Having shown that, as a product of divine creation, man 
was constituted a moral being in God’s image with conscience, 
freedom, and a natural bent to righteousness, the next question 
in logical order that confronts theology for explication is, What 
is man’s natural moral condition at present and what cireum- 
stances and events have brought him into that condition? The 
two phases of the question are better considered in reverse order. 


I. Original Probation 

Probation for a moral being is a period of testing as to 
the performance of duty. It involves obligation to obedience 
to law with a promise of reward for obedience and of penalty 
for disobedience subsequently to the probationary period. By 
original probation is meant the state of trial under which our 
first parents were placed when created. 

1. Probation Requisite for Moral Excellence.—In the light of 
the terrible consequences of the original probation the question 
may well be asked, Why did God place Adam under probation? 
Evidently God is able to confer on his creatures some sort of 
happiness without any probation whatever having been endured. 
But it is equally certain that the highest form of happiness 
possible is that which comes only to free beings and as a result 
of the right use of their freedom. This blessedness has the 
nature of reward. But reward implies desert, desert implies 
choice, and choice implies the possibility of an alternative. 
Together these constitute probation. An important element of 
reward from which much of its blessedness proceeds is the con- 
sciousness on the part of the recipient that he merits it. Like- 
wise the sting of the suffering of penalty is largely in the sense 
of guilt that accompanies it. But one may feel this particular 
aspect of the blessedness of reward only by having first endured 
trial. Therefore ‘‘blessed is the man that endureth temptation.”’ 
In Christian experience also blessing usually comes as a con- 
sequence of trial. The general laws of life are such that bless- 
edness is consequent on the endurance of trial. 

Probation is also needful for the development of moral 


character. God might have created beings with a different con- 
317 


318 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


stitution or with such strength of moral character that they 
would never be conscious of temptation to evil, but to the extent 
the capacity and opportunity for testing is eliminated, to that 
extent man’s responsibility and moral desert are taken away. 
As God has created man his character can become confirmed in 
holiness by a process of testing. As the physical and intellectual 
powers may be strengthened by severe stress and exercise, so in 
harmony with this general law of life the powers of the moral 
nature become strong only by exercise in choosing the right and 
rejecting the wrong under severe temptation. As the Christian 
by faithful endurance arrives at a place where certain things 
cease to tempt him, so it is probable that God intended Adam 
and Eve should arrive at a state of moral excellence. The Bible 
seems to intimate that angels were at one time on probation, 
that some fell, and that those who endured consequently became 
so confirmed in moral character that they are properly called 
‘‘holy angels.’’ 

In view of these facts it is unreasonable to object to God’s 
placing man under probation. If the divine economy in rela- 
tion to primitive man is to be questioned, it must be for God’s 
dealing with him as a moral being ought to be dealt with after 
he was created. 

2. Positive Probationary Law Given.—The feeling of ought 
belonged to man’s nature as created. He was under the moral 
law. In the nature of things he owed obedience to his Creator, 
to whom he was indebted for every benefit. It is altogether 
reasonable that he should conform to the moral law by doing 
that which is right in its very nature. But in addition to this 
God gave a positive law for the purpose of man’s probation. 
As far as the sacred record yvoes, that law consisted of a single 
commandment, ‘‘Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, 
thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof 
thou shalt surely die’’ (Gen 2:17). Whether other commands 
were given or would have been given if man had been faithful 
in the first test, we are not told. This command may have been 
recorded because it was the occasion for the fall. It need not 
be supposed there was any moral evil in eating that forbidden 
fruit. The commandment was a positive law and its violation 
was sin only because God had enjoined it. 

God had a right as sovereign ruler to enjoin such a law. 


FALL AND DEPRAVITY OF THE RACE 319 


Man may not have been able then and may not be able today to 
explain fully why it should have been given. But the devout 
person knows a good and wise Creator certainly had a good 
reason in giving it. In view of the purity of the nature of 
primitive man and his inexperience it seems probable that such 
a positive commandment was needful best to test his love for 
God. He might have been tempted through his sensuous nature 
or otherwise without it, but with an upright nature and no sinful 
influences without he doubtless could not otherwise have had the 
degree of definiteness in his probation which this commandment 
afforded. Also we may well reason that if Abraham after many 
years of testing needed for his proper development a positive 
law as in the command to offer up Isaac, and if Christians need 
positive law as in the New Testament ordinances, who will dare 
to say that primitive man did not need a positive law for his 
testing ? 

3. No Injustice in Adam’s Probation—-No objection can _ be 
urged against the requirements of God on the ground that it was 
impossible for primitive man to comply with them. In his own 
nature as a free agent he was free to obey the testing law. Be- 
sides, he also had a natural tendency to obey. The requirement 
was clearly pointed out, so it was possible for any rational mind 
to comprehend it. It was not a command to do something that 
required effort, but merely to refrain from doing what he had 
no need whatever to do. God desired and urged obedience by 
threatening death for disobedience and therefore by implication 
promising life for obedience. Great happiness in Eden was made 
possible through compliance with God’s requirement. There was 
no necessity for disobedience. The fruit of all the other trees of 
the garden was provided for food. These are described as ‘‘every 
tree that is pleasant to the eyes and good for food.’’ Full satis- 
_ faction was possible to primitive man without violating the 
divine injunction not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good 
and evil. The probation of our first parents was neither un- 
reasonable, unnecessary, nor unjust. 


II. Origin and Nature of Sin 


1. Nature of the First Temptation —The Mosaic account of the 
temptation and fall of primitive man is briefiy that the newly 
created man and woman were placed in a beautiful garden where 


320 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


among other trees were the tree of life and the tree of the knowl- 
edge of good and evil. Of the fruit of the latter tree they were 
divinely forbidden to eat lest they die. Through the temptation 
of the serpent the woman ate of it and gave to her husband, who 
ate also; in consequence of which they incurred the divine dis- 
pleasure, were expelled from Eden, and became subject to death. 

Three main classes may be distinguished among interpreters 
of the Biblical account of the fall—those who regard it as 
literal history, those who make it an allegory, and those who 
affirm it is only a myth. Those who view it as mythical are 
rationalists. That it is neither a myth nor an allegory, but 
literal history, is evident for various reasons. 

It is an integral part of a continuous history. The Book of 
Genesis professes to be literal history. No hint is given that the 
account of the fall is allegorical or other than history. There- 
fore if the record of the fall may be interpreted as a fable or 
allegory other parts of the book may be so interpreted. If Adam 
is a symbolic man why should not Abraham and other patriarchs 
be so regarded? But that Abraham is a historical character is 
evident, and it is reasonable to regard Adam ag also historical 
inasmuch as he is described in the same continuous narrative. 
And this account of the fall is an essential part, not only of 
the Book of Genesis, but of the Bible history as a whole. It is 
the foundation and starting-point of all the history recorded in 
the Scriptures, and as such is referred to, not only in the Old, 
but also in the New Testament (Rom. 5:12-19, 1 Tim. 2:13, 
14). Jesus and the apostles make the fall described in Genesis 
the ground for man’s universal sinfulness and need of salva- 
tion through Christ. Any writer who should mix true history 
with allegory without giving any intimation of transition from 
the one to the other must necessarily be regarded as unintel- 
ligible. Neither the inspiring Spirit nor the learned writer of 
Genesis can be supposed to have been a party to such literary 
incongruities. 

Therefore we may as reasonably regard Eden as a literal 
gcarden as to think of Canaan mentioned in the same book as a 
literal land. In the midst of the garden grew two trees, the 
tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. By 
eating of the fruit of the former, either because of its inherent 
virtue or because of a sacramental character conferred upon it, 


FALL AND DEPRAVITY OF THE RACE 321 


man’s body might be preserved in life and strength indefinitely. 
It is not unreasonable to suppose the Almighty created in its 
fruit intrinsic qualities that would rejuvenate man’s physical 
body. With evidence that the garden was literal, this fruit must 
be regarded as literal because it was necessary to expel Adam 
and Eve from Eden after they sinned lest they should eat of it 
and live forever. 

For similar reasons the tree of the knowledge of good and 
evil is to be thought of as a literal tree. We may not be certain 
that knowledge of good and evil consequent upon eating it was 
the result of the nature of the fruit. It seems more probable 
that its fruit had no peculiar qualities in itself, but that the 
restriction concerning its fruit was arbitrarily made of God 
for man’s testing. The woman saw that the tree was ‘‘good for 
food and pleasant to the eyes.’’ In this view the eating of its 
fruit imparted the knowledge of good and evil only in the sense 
that by disobeying God concerning it our foreparents came to 
an experimental knowledge of the difference between good and 
evil. 

In harmony with what has been said we are obligated to 
understand the statement that a serpent spoke to Eve as refer- 
ring to a literal serpent. We can not properly think of it as 
a figurative name for Satan, nor yet that Satan assumed the 
form of a serpent. The fact that the curse was pronounced 
upon the animal itself is proof it was a literal serpent. The 
question as to what kind of animal is referred to or what was 
its original form is not pertinent to our purpose. But the 
serpent alone could have been only an instrument in the temp- 
tation. Evidently Satan himself was the agent of it. Not 
only is the serpent without the power of speech, as is often 
objected, but the intelligence displayed by the tempter relative 
to the divine injunction far exceeded that of any irrational 
animal, even the most subtle. It is true the Bible nowhere 
directly states that the serpent was an instrument of Satan, but 
it is often assumed in the New Testament (Rev. 12:9; 20:2; 
Rom. 16:20; John 8:44). Satan could as easily talk through a 
serpent as he did through the demoniacs whom Jesus healed. 

The first stage of the temptation was to cause Eve to doubt 
God’s goodness, the second was to beget in her mind unbelief 
concerning the truthfulness of God’s warning of death for eat- 


322 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ing, the third was to awaken in her an ambition to be like God, 
which was prompted by sinful pride. In spite of alleged dif- 
ficulties in the narrative of that primitive temptation, taken 
altogether it is in nowise incredible to those not predetermined 
to unbelief. 

2. Man’s Fall and Its Effects——The fact of man’s fall is not 
only elearly revealed in the Bible, but the consequences of it 
are so evident in human nature that its reality is commonly 
recognized. The fall of the primitive pair was by deliberate, 
intentional violation of the divine commandment. Though the 
act of eating the forbidden fruit may have been insignificant 
in itself, yet its consequences were of incomparable importance. 
Their act implied a flagrant rejection of their Creator, contempt 
for his good law, and a love of things and self more than of 
God. 

The penalty threatened for violation of the probationary 
injunction was death. As the term was used in this connection, 
death doubtless included much more than physical death. The 
penalty for that transgression was severe, and rightly so be- 
cause of the enormity of the crime. Adam and Eve questioned 
God’s goodness in withholding from them certain powers, though 
he had given them every good they possessed. They were guilty 
of extreme infidelity in believing Satan rather than God. They 
were envious and sought to steal what God had reserved to him- 
self as sovereign by seeking to be like him through violating 
his law. The death that was visited upon man was threefold. 
Perpetual life had been provided for him in Eden. Through 
sin physical death entered into the world by his exclusion from 
the tree of life. The second sense of that penal death is spiri- 
tual death, or the separation from God, whose presence is essen- 
tial to the realization of spiritual life or that life in which the 
spirit rules. Death is the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23). The 
apostle Paul said of his experience of coming to feel moral re- 
sponsibility, ‘‘Sin revived, and I died’’ (Rom. 7:9). Physical 
death was not inflicted at once, because of God’s redemptive 
grace to be offered. For the same reason though spiritual death 
at once became actual, yet it did not become an irrecoverable 
state. The third sense of death was eternal death or eternal 
separation from God, which became actual only in case God’s 
offered grace was finally rejected. 


FALL AND DEPRAVITY OF THE RACE 323 


Not only did man become subject to physical death, but his 
body became subject to disease and pain, and his physical powers 
became weakened insomuch that often he is scarcely able to per- 
form the duties of life which devolve upon him. Doubtless the 
mind has also been affected adversely by the fall. In men gen- 
erally may be observed dullness of the perceptive faculty, a lack 
of balance in judgment, incapacity to remember facts of practical 
importance which should be remembered, or enfeebled powers of 
reasoning. Surely such weakness did not characterize primitive 
man when God pronounced him very good. The curse upon 
man after his apostasy included certain changes in external 
nature such as the thorns and thistles the ground brought forth, 
but to what extent the animal and vegetable orders and inorganic 
nature were changed is not revealed. Evidently such knowledge 
is not necessary to our salvation. The moral effects of the fall 
will be discussed later. 

3. Nature of Sin —Of fundamental importance to any system 
of theology is the question What is sin? It demands considera- 
tion, not only by theology, but also by philosophy. The present 
consideration of sin is from the Biblical viewpoint. Sin in its 
primary sense is a want of conformity to law. It is the opposite 
of holiness, which was defined, when we discussed it as a divine 
attribute, as being conformity to law. The term ‘‘sin’’ is used 
in two senses—(1) of conduct, and (2) of character. In the 
first, which is the primary use, it is commonly expressed in the 
New Testament by the Greek term Gvouia (anomia) which means 
contrary to law or without law. Sin in this sense has to do only 
with conduct, not in the narrow sense of mere muscular action, 
but in the broader sense as including thoughts, motives 
and volitions. In this sense it is often called actual transgression 
to distinguish it from sinfulness of character, which is frequently 
termed original sin or natural depravity. In this latter or 
secondary sense it has to do with what one 7s rather than with 
what he does. Another Greek term cuaotia (hamartia) is ordi- 
narily used in the New Testament to describe this unholiness of 
character. Examples of the use of this Greek word are as follows: 
‘“When the commandment came, sin revived, and I died’’ (Rom. 
7:9). ‘‘Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth 
in me’’ (vy. 17). Here sin, Guaotia (hamartia) is evidently used 
to designate a derangement or depravity of the nature. In one 


324 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


place, 1 John 3:4, Guaotia (hamartia, sin) is used as a synonym 
of dvoula (anomia) and is said to be Gvonia (anomia), or a 
transgression of the law. 

Sin in conduct may be by commission—doing what should 
not be done; or by omission—failing to do what should be done. 
Two standards may be distinguished for judging as to what is 
sinful—(1) sin in the abstract or absolute sense, and (2) sin in 
the concrete or imputed sense. In the first view acts are Judged 
in relation to principles of right apart from the actor’s knowledge 
or motives in performing them. For example according to this 
view to speak falsely is regarded as sin even though the speaker 
is ignorant of the fact that he speaks falsely and intends to speak 
only the truth. 

According to the second view, which is the sense in which sin 
is commonly used of conduct in the New Testament, only those 
acts are sinful which are prompted by wrong motives. In this 
view sin is imputed as guilt to one only according to his know!l- 
edge or intentions. That which is right in itself is imputed as 
sin to one who esteems it to be evil when he performs it. Such 
is the teaching of the apostle Paul in regard to the eating of 
meats and the observing of days. ‘‘To him that esteemeth any 
thing to be unclean, to him it ig unclean’’ (Rom. 14:14). Like- 
wise, if for lack of knowledge one does with a good motive that 
which is in itself a violation of principles of right, it is not 
imputed to him as sin, because of his good motive in doing it. 
In this sense sin is a violation of the obligation of supreme 
love to God, which is the first and greatest commandment and 
on which all others hang. Imputed sin in conduct, then, is a 
rebellious attitude of heart toward God. 

Therefore, sin is imputed to its perpetrator as such only 
when he feels a sense of moral obligation, and voluntarily 
chooses that which he believes to be wrong. It is not required 
that he shall have performed an outward sinful act or spoken 
an evil word. He may sin in thought. ‘‘ Whosoever looketh on 
a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her 
_ already in his heart’’ (Matt. 5:28). Sin is committed in the 
volition to do what is esteemed to be wrong. Temptation is not 
sin. When Eve considered the words of the serpent and felt 
the desire for the forbidden fruit she had not yet committed sin. 
She incurred no guilt until of her own free will she decided to 


FALL AND DEPRAVITY OF THE RACE 325 


do what God had forbidden. God was responsible for the prim- 
itive probation. Satan tempted Eve. But neither the fact of 
probation nor the temptation were determinative of the woman's 
conduct. She determined that herself. Therefore God is not 
the author of sin, but man is wholly responsible for it. 

4, Sin not a Divine Method—Among the many attempts to 
explain the divine permission of the origin of moral evil, one of 
the most common is the theory that God permitted sin on the 
part of the human race as a part of his plan that he might in 
turn provide redemption and by such a manifestation of divine 
goodness, love, and holiness bring blessings to mankind they could 
not otherwise enjoy. This view has been supported by not a few 
eminent thinkers of the Reformed Church and even by John 
Wesley. Such a divine ordering of sin is supposed to be pro- 
ductive of a degree of faith and love in men not otherwise at- 
tainable by making known the perfect goodness and holiness of 
God. Also it is assumed that by experience of suffering because 
of sin men are enabled to develop a degree of gentleness, meek- 
ness, long-suffering, and patience that could be possessed in no 
other way. Doubtless there are elements of truth in this theory; 
still we regard it as not only unprovable, but as open to serious 
objections. 

First it represents the Scriptures with their denunciations 
of sin as being deceitful. It charges them with insincerity, if 
sin is of God and ordained by him to accomplish righteousness. 
If we must think of sin as useful it is not possible to think ac- 
cording to facts when in a Biblical frame of mind. It represents 
God as hypocritical, as being on both sides of an ethical question 
at the same time. It makes him to decree that a man commit 
sin and then forbid that he do it under the threat of endless 
punishment. The theory holds that sin was necessary that the 
justice and love of God might be exhibited in dealing with sin- 
ners in opposite ways. Yet it fails to show either love or justice 
in God, but instead exhibits only a sole arbitrary divine will. 
To say that God ordained sin that good might result is equal to 
saying he caused it. But if God is the cause of sin he can not 
be regarded as holy. A theory which results in a denial of God’s 
holiness must be rejected as unbiblical. It is unreasonable that 
sin, the greatest evil, is necessary to the greatest good. If it 
be true that God must choose sin to accomplish good he is 


326 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


limited in his methods and can not be regarded as absolute. That 
God ordains evil that good may result is contradictory to both 
the Bible and man’s highest moral sense. 

Concerning the theory that an experience in sin is needful 
for man’s moral training, it may be allowed that since sin exists 
God may make it to contribute to the ethical training of those 
who will serve him, but this is far from saying that sin is neces- 
sary to such training or that much better results might not have 
resulted if there had been no fall. If experience in sin is essen- 
tial to the development of high moral character, how shall we 
account for the perfect character of Christ? It is not experience 
in sin, but ceaseless struggle against temptation to it, that 
develops moral character. Opportunity for such resistance to 
temptation was furnished by God’s placing man on probation, 
but there was no need that sin should ever be committed for all 
the benefit that was to be derived from struggling against it. 
Whatever incentive to love and faith may be afforded by the 
manifestation of the divine goodness in the redemptive work of 
Christ is probably overbalanced by the loss of capacity in a 
degree for both love and faith which resulted from the fall. 

The more Scriptural view and one which harmonizes with 
the ethical sense of mankind is that God is absolutely opposed 
to sin, and all his relations to it are only by way of prevention, 
remedy, or punishment. God created man a moral being with 
full freedom to choose the right and to abstain from the wrong, 
gave him a holy nature with a bent to righteousness, but placed 
him under a probationary law for his testing with a preference 
for his obedience. God was in no wise responsible for man’s 
sin, but only for making sinning possible, which was a neces- 
sary consequence of man’s having been constituted a moral be- 
ing. God permitted sin in this sense, but man was entirely free 
in falling and wholly responsible for it. 

III. Nature of Original Sin 

1. Sense of the Term.—Among the terms used to designate 
that sinfulness of human nature resulting from the sin of our 
first parents are: original sin, Adamic sin, native depravity, 
inherited, inbred, or indwelling sin, the carnal nature, and the 
flesh. Though they have all been used in religious and doctrinal 
statements more or less indiscriminately, yet they are not all 
synonymous. Original, Adamic, inherited, inbred, or indwelling 


FALL AND DEPRAVITY OF THE RACE 327 


sin in their broadest usage include whatever sin, either guilt 
or evil tendency, is conceived to attach to one at his birth. Native 
depravity has a narrower meaning as designating in no sense 
guilt for Adam’s sin, but only a natural or inherited evil tend- 
ency of human nature. The carnal or fleshly nature is a Biblical 
term which is usually understood to refer to the evil tendency 
of the natures of men. The term ‘‘flesh’’ is used by the inspired 
writers in this figurative sense doubtless because the physical 
desires are so often the medium through which the depraved 
nature operates. 

Original sin has been used more than any other term to 
represent natural sinfulness. Its use in this sense may be traced 
back to Tertullian. Augustine, who gave it special prominence, 
and those who hold the Augustinian anthropology have ever 
used it to include, not only depravity of the moral nature, but 
also ili desert of that depravity as well as guilt for Adam/’s first 
sin. Augustinians understand original sin to include at least 
these three ideas. In our present use of the term we exclude the 
idea of guilt and make it to include and to be synonymous with 
native depravity. Because of its more specific sense we prefer 
ordinarily to use native depravity. What then is the nature of 
original sin used in this sense? 

2. A Derangement of the Moral Nature—Depravity is certain 
as to its reality, though it is not easily grasped by thought as 
to its nature. But the difficulty of apprehending its nature 
ean not properly be made an objection to the fact of its reality. 
Many facts are known as to their certainty while their mode 
is altogether inscrutable. That man thinks is undeniable, but 
how he thinks is unknowable. We know the mind is a reality by 
its phenomena, but what it is is beyond the grasp of thought. 
Likewise the reality of depravity is known by its activities, 
though its exact nature is probably not accurately and fully 
definable. 

Evidently depravity can not properly be thought of as a phy- 
sical entity. Neither is it a spiritual existence or faculty added 
to man’s spiritual being. It is rather a state or condition of the 
moral nature. It may be illustrated by that which causes the 
nature of the lion to differ from the nature of the lamb. The 
nature of the lion is to be ferocious, but the nature of the lamb 
is to be docile. We know the distinction is real. Likewise some 


328 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


men’s lives are good and upright, while those of others are sin- 
ful and vile. Those who are good in their conduct are so be- 
cause it is their nature to be good. Those who are sinful are 
sinful because their inner nature in sinful. But man as origi- 
nally created is represented in the Scriptures as being holy. 
Therefore inherited sinful nature must be a result of a depravity 
or derangement of the moral nature. This derangement con- 
sists principally in the perversion of those three faculties which 
go to constitute man a moral being—the conscience, the affections, 
and the will. 

(1) Lhe conscience is seared.~ Depravity does not consist of 
a loss of the moral faculty of conscience. Most men, though 
sinful, and depraved, are clearly conscious of the voice of con- 
science. But it is also a fact of human experience generally 
recognized that in most men conscience does not function effec- 
tually. It is evidently in a weakened, abnormal state. In some 
persons it is much less efficient than in others. Some who make 
no profession of Christianity, and who recognize depravity in 
themselves in other respects, have a very tender conscience that 
keeps them from doing many sins that others freely indulge in 
without compunction, Other persons have so often disregarded 
conscience that it is seared. They commit the most atrocious 
crimes apparently without any feeling of remorse. This vari- 
ability of the efficiency of conscience is partly acquired, but much 
of it characterizes persons from infancy. This is to be accounted 
for on the ground of degrees of depravity in different indi- 
viduals. Such a lack of efficient functioning of conscience in 
any degree is an element in constituting depravity of the nature. 

In all of its functions—discriminative, impulsive, and re- 
tributive—conscience is found to be deficient. It often fails to 
discriminate between the right and the wrong. This is prin- 
cipally due to the weakening of the sense of right. The preval- 
ence of sin on every hand is certainly proof that conscience is 
inefficient in impelling to the right. Perversion of the conscience 
is also evident from the fact that men intentionally violate God’s 
laws without compunction. Because of depravity the voice of 
conscience with most men is usually no more than a whisper in- 
stead of a strong, stern voice of command. 

(2) The affections are perverted. The most noticeable and 
probably the most definite manifestation of depravity is in the 


FALL AND DEPRAVITY OF THE RACE 329 


perversion of the. affections. The Scriptures commonly describe 
this feature of depravity as a sinful heart. ‘‘The heart is deceit- 
ful above all things and desperately wicked.’’ Man was made 
to love God, but he bestows the love that properly belongs to his 
Creator on the creature instead, and especially does he love him- 
self. Selfishness largely dominates the natural heart. The sinful 
heart is prone to forget the Giver of good things in a selfish 
grasping for the things themselves. Likewise depravity causes 
one to love himself more than his neighbor, rather than as his 
neighbor. Surely this inordinate selfishness did not characterize 
man in the time of his original holiness, but must be referred to 
present depravity. 

As a result of this element of selfishness that deranges the 
emotional nature, many particular emotions which are right in 
themselves are so perverted that they either give a tendency to 
evil or are evil in themselves. Men naturally have a desire to 
be pleasing to their fellow men, which is evidently desirable 
and good. Such a disposition is the natural result of loving 
others more than oneself. But inordinate self-love will cause 
one to desire to be, not only pleasing to others, but more pleas- 
ing to them than any one else. This will lead to envy, jealousy, 
and pride, which are forms of selfishness. There is a natural 
pride or self-respect, that is legitimate, but when it comes to be 
based upon selfishness it is sinful. Another example of the effect 
of depravity is the disposition to acquire things. This disposi- 
tion to be provident is legitimate and desirable. But through 
selfishness it degenerates into a desire to acquire things for their 
own sake and becomes covetousness. 

The emotion of anger is right and desirable in itself 1f it 
be merely as a feeling of indignation consequent on a sense of 
outraged justice. This sense of justice is an essential of human 
nature. It is necessary to moral being. When gross injustice 
is done against either oneself or another, one naturally has feel- 
ings of disapproval. In themselves such feelings are good and 
necessary to personal goodness. But when they include an ele- 
ment of vindictiveness calling for revenge they are evil. Vindic- 
tive anger is not possible when one loves others as he loves him- 
self. 

(3) The will is enslaved. <A third aspect of the derange- 
ment of the nature is the enslavement of the will. This does not 


330 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


mean that the power of choice is lost through sin or that the will 
ceases to be a power of alternative choice. By constant yielding 
to the desires of the lower nature the will becomes weakened 
in power effectually to volitionate that which is good. From 
birth the will is so weakened. Some theologians locate depravity 
exclusively in the will while others deny a depraved condition 
of the will. The former regard the will as inclined to evil. But 
all impulse and inclination are in the sensibilities. The will is not 
a personal agency, but merely the power of choice. Therefore 
the will is affected by depravity only mediately through the 
sensibilities. Because the sensuous nature is perverted the will 
fails to function as it should in moral volitions. 

3. A Loss of the Holy Spirit—Depravity is not a subtraction 
from nor an addition to any natural power of man’s spiritual na- 
ture. The intellectual, emotional, and volitional faculties remain 
constitutionally as they were created. They are affected only as 
to condition, not as to their existence. But only of natural powers 
ean it be said there has been no subtraction or addition. Super- 
naturally sin causes both a subtraction and an addition. Con- 
sistency requires that depravity be defined in harmony with 
the nature of original holiness. Original righteousness was 
described, not only as a natural tendency to righteousness, but 
also as including the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. 
Depravity then is not only a natural tendency to sin, but also a 
deprivation of the power and communion of the Spirit of God. 
He could not dwell with a sinful soul. And to anticipate the 
consideration of the nature of the work of salvation, it consists 
in not only the restoration of the nature to right tendencies, but 
also an incoming of the presence and power of the Holy Ghost. 
Because of this loss of the Holy Spirit through the fall, depravity 
has been described as ‘‘depravation through deprivation.’’ Still 
another aspect of the nature of depravity is found in the fact 
that as man was originally under the influence of the Holy Spirit 
so through the derangement of the nature the spirit of Satan is 
furnished an opportunity to influence him. Unregenerate man 
is in a measure under the control of, and possessed by, the devil. 
Therefore as to supernatural effects depravity includes both a 
subtraction and an addition. 

4. A Bent to Sin a Result of Depravity—Because of this 
derangement of the nature, the loss of the presence of God, and 


FALL AND DEPRAVITY OF THE RACE 331 


the consequent influence of the Evil One, depraved man has a 
tendency to commit sin. It is not strictly accurate to say deprav- 
ity is a tendency to evil. It is more proper to state that it 
causes man to have a tendency to evil. The constituent nature 
of depravity is back of this tendency as before described. Yet 
the point of practical importance is this effect of depravity, a 
tendency to do that which is evil. 


IV. Extent of Native Depravity 

1. The Question of Total Depravity—The question is one con- 
cerning which much theological controversy has raged in the 
past. That man is totally depraved has been very strongly 
advocated by Calvinists. This theory is essential to the Augus- 
tinian theology. It is one of the principal arguments for that 
other essentially Calvinistic theory—predestination. It is assum- 
ed that man is totally depraved, unable to choose any good; 
therefore only as God, of his own sovereign will, chooses to save 
men will they ever be saved. Arminian theology, especially in 
more recent times, has rejected the idea of total depravity in the 
sense in which Calvinism holds it. 

Because of this controversy and the varying senses in which 
total depravity has been affirmed, the term itself has come to be 
ambiguous. Therefore the question ‘‘Is man totally depraved ?’’ 
can not well be answered satisfactorily with either yes or no, In 
what sense then may it be properly said that man is totally 
depraved, and in what sense is he not totally depraved? In 
respect to the effects of sin upon the moral nature as heretofore 
described, depravity is not total. The moral nature is deranged, 
but it is not entirely destroyed. Conscience is weakened in all 
its aspects, but in depraved men it still performs its functions 
in a measure. The affections are alienated from God and 
centered upon self, yet unregenerate men are not wholly selfish. 
The will is enslaved, but it is not altogether powerless in moral 
volitions. Even though man is depraved by being deprived of 
the power of the divine Spirit to keep him from sin, yet he is 
not wholly deprived of divine influences, for the Spirit still 
eonvicts him of sin and his need of God. 

But total depravity is usually affirmed in the sense that man 
is altogether powerless to choose the right. Calvinists hold that 
man is totally unable to choose to serve God, and therefore that 


332 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


one’s obtaining salvation is wholly dependent upon the will of 
God. The Calvinistic theory we reject as being contradictory 
to the common teaching of the Scriptures that salvation is offered 
to whosoever will accept it, and that therefore men have power 
to accept or reject it. This is in agreement with the idea of free 
will as we have represented it. Yet it is true that men can come 
to Christ for salvation only as drawn by the Father. As God 
draws men to Christ they must accept if they are to be saved. In 
the sense that men ean choose salvation only by the help of God, 
they might be said to be totally depraved. But if by total de- 
pravity is meant that man lacks*power of alternative choice, as 
Calvinism holds, then we deny that man is totally depraved. 

Unregenerate men may also be described as totally depraved 
in the sense that they do not have power to refrain from all 
sinning. This truth is set forth with vividness and force in the 
seventh chapter of Romans. As a result of the perversion of the 
affections and the consequent dominance of the lower nature, the 
will unassisted can not effectually volitionate against evil. One 
ean only will to let God save him. He can not save himself. No 
process of culture or of growth into regeneration is possible. The 
words of Jesus are true concerning all men, ‘‘Ye must be born 
again.”’ 

2. Degrees of Depravity—The theory of total depravity 
allows no room for degrees of depravity either native or ac- 
quired. Depravity viewed as a derangement of the moral nature 
may exist in different individuals in varying degrees. Evidently 
some persons are more depraved than are others. The hardened 
criminal is more depraved than the innocent child. His con- 
science is less sensitive, his affections are more perverted, his 
will is more enslaved by sin, and he is less susceptible to the 
drawings of God’s Spirit than is the child. 

Two aspects of depravity may be distinguished—inherited 
and acquired. All men are depraved in some degree from birth. 
But this natural depravity may be increased in degree indefi- 
nitely by indulgence in sin. This is evident both from the nature 
of depravity and also from observation and experience. There- 
fore degrees may be distinguished, not only in acquired deprav- 
ity, but also in inherited derangement of the moral faculties. 
Observation shows that some persons are naturally more con- 
scientious than are others. Others are naturally more selfish, 


FALL AND DEPRAVITY OF THE RACE 333 


and their wills are more enslaved to the lower desires. They are 
less inclined to morals and religion and more inclined to sin. 
Doubtless these degrees in native depravity as distinguished from 
acquired are to be explained on the ground that especially the 
immediate and probably the more remote ancestors were more 
sinful in the cases of those who are born more depraved. 


V. Proofs of Native Depravity 


The reality of human depravity, that the moral natures of 
men are naturally in a deranged condition, is so evident that cita- 
tion of proofs is almost superfluous. The sinfulness of human 
nature has been more or less distinctly recognized by mankind 
generally. Its reality is evident, not only from the Bible, but 
also from the facts of life and experience. From both sources 
the proofs are very many. A few only are given here. 

1. Expressly Taught in the Bible—Jn both the Old and New 
Testaments may be found direct Scripture proofs of depravity. 
Not merely the conduct of men, but also their hearts are describ- 
ed as evil. ‘‘The heart is deceitful above all things, and des- 
perately wicked: who can know it?’’ (Jer. 17:9). ‘‘The heart 
of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil’’ (Eecl. 8:11). 
‘‘Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil 
continually’? (Gen. 6:5). ‘‘The imagination of man’s heart 
is evil from his youth’’ (Gen. 8:21). Here man’s heart, or 
affectional nature, that which gives motive for action, is repre- 
sented as being sinful. All the vile sins of the antediluvians are 
referred to the evil tendency of a sinful heart as their source. 
These affirmations of sinfulness of the hearts of men can not be 
reasonably understood of depravity acquired by their individual 
conduct, for the general sinfulness of heart here described is 
rationally possible only on the ground that such sinful character 
is native to them. The last text definitely declares that men’s 
hearts are evil from their youth. 

A very direct affirmation of native depravity is given by 
David in his penitential psalm. ‘‘Behold, I was shapen in in- 
iquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me’’ (Psa. 51:5). 
In the verses preceding and following this statement David in 
deepest contrition acknowledges the vileness of his sins and 
implores pardon. As a further humiliation he goes a step fur- 
ther and describes himself as having been sinful in his very 


334 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


yh ie \) Ralf y ly es 
nature from his earliest existence. Again the Psalmist says, 
‘‘The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as 
soon as they be born, speaking lies’’ (Psa. 58:3). Ividently 
no actual sin can be committed by people as soon as they are 
born and not until they come to the age of moral responsibility. 
This estrangement from the womb, then, can refer only to a 
native tendency to evil. Such an interpretation must be the 
correct one, aS no other is consistent with all the facts in the 
case. j 

In referring to the former conduct of himself and fellow 
Christians at Ephesus the apostle Paul said, ‘‘And were by 
nature the children of wrath, even as others’’ (Eph. 2:3). ‘‘By 
nature’’ means by birth. When Paul said of himself and Peter 
that they were ‘‘Jews by nature’’ (Gal. 2:15) he meant they 
were Jews by birth, not by proselytism. So the Ephesian saints 
were by birth the children of wrath, or sinful by nature. As 
already shown, such sinfulness can not be committed sin; there- 
fore this text must assert that men are depraved from birth. 
The same truth is set forth in Rom. 7:9: ‘‘I was alive without 
the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and 
I died.’’ The only time Paul was without the law was during 
infancy before he understood its commandments. But when he 
eame to know the commandments as God’s law to him, he at 
onee sinned and suffered sin’s consequences, spiritual death. 
But when the commandment came, ‘‘sin revived,’’ which imphes 
that sin was in him. That indwelling sin could be only native 
depravity. 

2. Clearly Implied in the Scriptures.—Depravity, like the truth 
of the divine existence and many other of the most important 
truths of Revelation, is more frequently assumed, implied, and 
referred to incidentally than it is directly affirmed. Jesus 
clearly recognized the reality of depravity of heart when he said, 
‘Out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, 
fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, 
lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all 
these things come from within, and defile the man’’ (Mark 7: 21- 
23). If man were naturally innocent, as is held by Pelagians, 
then these evil things must originate from without, but Jesus 
said they come from within, implying that men are depraved. 
Similarly Jesus taught that a man, like a tree, is known by his 


FALL AND DEPRAVITY OF THE RACE 335 


fruits. ‘‘A good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither 
doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is 
known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, 
nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes. A good man out of 
the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; 
and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth 
forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his 
mouth speaketh’’ (Luke 6: 438-45). Nothing can be clearer than 
that Jesus here tells us that the cause of sinfulness of conduct is 
sinfulness of nature. Men sin because it is their nature to sin, 
as an apple-tree bears apples because it is its nature to bear 
apples. As evil fruit is the result of an evil tree, so sin is a result 
of sinfulness in one’s nature. The stream is like the fountain 
from which it flows. One’s conduct can be good only as his heart 
is good. ‘‘Cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, 
that the outside of them may be clean’’ (Matt. 23: 26). 

In conformity with the foregoing is the implication of de- 
pravity in all those texts of the New Testament which state 
that all men are sinners. ‘*‘We have before proved both Jews 
and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There 
ig none righteous, no, not one’’ (Rom. 3:9, 10). ‘‘For all have 
sinned, and come short of the glory of God’’ (Rom. 3:23). 
In the first chapter of Romans Paul has shown that the Gentiles 
as a class are given to vile sins. In the second chapter he shows 
the Jews as a class are equally sinful. In these verses quoted 
from the third chapter he refers to that proof and affirms that 
both Jews and Gentiles are sinful. His reasoning is not that 
individuals may not be saved from sinning through grace, but 
that all are naturally sinful and need the special grace of God. 
This same truth of universal human sinfulness is found in other 
places in the Scriptures (Job 14:4; 15:15. I John 1:7, 9). 

3. Ground for the Need of Regeneration.—No righteousness is 
possible to men by doing the works of the law. This is a truth 
declared again and again by the Apostle in the epistles to the 
Romans and Galatians and elsewhere. ‘‘By the deeds of the 
law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight’’ (Rom. 3: 20). 
‘‘A man is not justified by the works of the law’’ (Gal. 2:16). 
‘*For if there had been a law given which could have given life, 
verily righteousness should have been by the law’’ (Gal. 3:21). 
The reason the law could not give life was because righteous- 


336 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ness by the law was not possible. It was not possible because 
men do not possess power to keep the law. This is clearly shown, 
especially in the seventh chapter of Romans. There is described 
the experience of the unregenerate person who endeavors to find 
justification by obedience to the law. But obedience is found 
to be impossible. In his failure he exclaims, ‘‘The good that l 
would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do’’ 
(v. 19). The cause of his failure is described in the next verse 
as being ‘‘sin that dwelleth in me.’’ This indwelling sin can 
be nothing else than an evil bent of the nature. The remedy 
for it is found in Christ, as set forth in Rom. 8:2. ‘The law 
of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the 
law of sin and death.’’ With pardon through faith in Christ 
must also come regeneration by the Holy Spirit in order to have 
power for obedience. 

‘‘Except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom 
of God’’ (John 3:3). This new birth or regeneration is else- 
where called receiving a new heart, or becoming a new crea- 
ture. This is a divine work in one’s inner nature, affecting his 
character, and is to be clearly distinguished from pardon of 
committed sins, which has to do with effecting right relations 
with God. But why must one be born again? Evidently because 
naturally he was born with a sinful nature, and needs to have 
it renovated by the power of a new birth. Naturally men are 
evil, and therefore need to become new creatures, or to have 
a new heart. The fact of depravity is fundamental to Christian 
doctrine. If there were no depravity there could be no regen- 
eration. But the doctrine of regeneration is certain in the 
Seriptures. Therefore in every text which teaches the new 
birth ig also implied the truth of native depravity. 

4. Universality of Sinning—Though native depravity is more 
clearly set forth in the Bible than it can be known merely from 
observation and experience, yet as is true of many other reli- 
gious truths the reality of it is certain independently of reve- 
lation. Human experience at the present and all past history 
of the race testify to universal sinning. From the time wicked 
Cain slew his brother until the present the pages of history have 
been one long record of crime—cruelty, oppression, bloodshed, 
war, hatred, licentiousness, deceit, falsehood, and covetousness. 
Excepting the sinless Son of Man and those saved by divine 


FALL AND DEPRAVITY OF THE RACE 337 


grace, no sinless man has yet been found. The best of unre- 
generate men admit their lives have not been without sin. If one 
who had come to the age of manhood without regeneration should 
testify to having been always sinless he would not only contradict 
the moral judgment of all men, but they would consider such 
a claim sinful in itself. Truly, ‘‘there is no man that sinneth 
not’’ but ‘‘all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.’’ 
‘““If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a lar.”’ 

The fact of universal sinning is properly referable to uni- 
versal sinfulness. The tree is like its fruits. Men sin because it 
is their nature to sin. An evil bent of the nature is the only 
adequate account of the prevalence of sin. The Pelagian theory 
that widespread sinning is due to imitation, education, and ex- 
ample fails adequately to account for all the facts. Men imitate 
evil examples more readily than the good. Therefore they must 
have a natural tendency to evil rather than good. And though 
the constant effort of parents and educators is to train to virtue 
and away from vice, yet their efforts are often comparatively 
fruitless. And if sinning is to be referred to imitation, educa- 
tion, and example, how did sin begin to be more prevalent than 
virtue ? 

In addition to the necessity of accounting for the amount of 
sin committed, is aiso the need of an adequate reason for crimes 
of great enormity. Evidently one can commit very great sin 
only by first committing lesser sins that harden the heart, callous 
the conscience, and blunt the moral sense. But if there were no 
natural tendency to evil it is altogether improbable that so 
large a number of persons should persist in sinning until sins 
of great enormity are possible. 

5. Sinning in Spite of Restraints—A very strong tendency to 
commit sin is manifested in men’s sinning constantly against 
many restraints. God has threatened and frequently inflicted 
terrible punishment for sin. His laws are all directed against 
sin to cause men to refrain from it. The preaching of the gospel 
is ealeulated to check it. The goodness of God shown in nature 
and the gospel offer of pardon should persuade men to virtue. 
Conscience thunders against sin and when it is committed lashes 
the culprit mercilessly, yet men continue to sin. They sin in 
spite of the enactment of civil laws against those sins they com- 
mit. Men’s own interests, self-respect, good-will of friends, 


338 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


reputation, and the observed evil effects of sin on health, wealth, 
character, and domestic happiness are all restraints to sinning. 
Yet men sin. The only adequate explanation of a practise so 
unreasonable is that it is the nature of men to sin. 

6. A Natural Tendency to Sin.—Observation shows that from 
earliest childhood a disposition to commit sin exists. In mere 
infants are displayed selfishness, hatred, deceit, falsehood, pride, 
envy, resentment, and cruelty. The chief purpose of moral 
training is to curb these evil tendencies. But in spite of all 
that ean be done by parents and teachers united with all one 
ean do in later life by way of ‘self-culture, attempts at refor- 
mation are attended with great difficulty and meager fruits. 
Good resolutions are made only to be broken. Religious agencies 
are comparatively ineffectual to effect reformation. The only 
reasonable explanation of these facts is that men are naturally 
disposed to evil. 

Men are conscious of a tendency to do evil. Some recognize 
themselves disposed to one sin, some to another. But all possess 
and most men recognize in a Measure a tendency to commit sin 
and to forget God. They know, not only that they do wrong, 
but that they are wrong. Revelation, experience, and conscious- 
ness all unite in testifying to a native derangement of man’s 
moral nature. 


CHAPTER IV 
MODE OF TRANSMISSION OF ORIGINAL SIN 


Evidently the Scriptures teach that the present depravity 
and sinfulness of the race is a consequence of the first sin of 
Adam. Christians generally have united in holding this view. 
But what is that relation of Adam to his posterity which has 
resulted in entailing these awful consequences upon his descen- 
dants? What is the philosophy of the transmission of depravity 
from Adam to the race? Various theories of the mode of the 
transmission of depravity have been propounded. Both as a 
help in distinguishing the true mode and also because of the 
large influence of other theories on Christian thought, some 
acquaintance with them is important. But to understand the 
theories of the mode of the transmission of depravity the dif- 
ferent theories of the nature of depravity must first be under- 
stood. 

I. Theories of Original Sin 

Three main theories concerning the nature and extent of 
depravity have been given prominence—(1) the Pelagian, (2) 
the Augustinian, and (3) the Arminian, as they have been 
called after those who first formulated them. Semi-Pelagianism 
might also be named as a fourth theory, but this may be classed 
with Arminianism, to which it is somewhat similar. 

1. Pelagian Theory.—Pelagius was a British monk who went 
to Rome about the beginning of the fifth century, where, because 
of his even temperament and purity of life, he won great esteem. 
The laxity of morals he observed there even among the clergy 
he attributed to the teaching of moral helplessness through 
depravity. Having a naturally mild disposition and _ conse- 
quently no such sense of helplessness in his own experience, he 
advanced the extreme theory that there is no native depravity; 
that the sin of Adam resulted in the fall of himself alone; that 
the new-born child is characterless, as he affirmed was also Adam 
when created; that each individual has a natural power of un- 
hampered free choice; and that sin consists in acts, not in a 
tendency of the nature, except as the will of him who sins might 
form the habit of sinning. In short, he denied that Adam’s 
sin had any effect on his posterity morally, mentally, or phy- 


sically, except that Adam set an evil example by sinning, Even 
339 


340 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


physical death he disallowed was a penalty for sin, holding that 
from the first mortality of the body was natural and would 
certainly become actual. 

Such a theory is so thoroughly contradictory to the common 
experience of mankind, who constantly struggle against evil 
desires and passions, that its adherents have never been num- 
erous. All the proofs of native depravity previously given are 
opposed to Pelagianism. Though Pelagius was orthodox in his 
belief in the divine Trinity, yet his theory naturally affiliates 
with rationalism and is held today principally by Unitarians 
and other liberalists. Its denial of depravity of the nature ex- 
cludes the idea of regeneration, and makes a place for the theory 
that salvation is purely a process of education—the theory of 
Unitarianism. With them Christ is not a priest or atoner, 
but only a prophet or teacher. By excluding native depravity 
it necessarily has no room for a theory of the mode of the trans- 
mission of depravity. 

2. Augustinian Theory.—The opposite extreme of the Pelagian 
anthropology is the Augustinian. When Pelagius began to advo- 
cate his theory in North Africa he met in Augustine the most 
effectual opposer of his views. Unlike Pelagius, Augustine had 
struggled long and vainly against evil passions which vanquished 
him. He had proved by experience that only the grace of God 
was sufficient to save him from a profligate life to which he 
felt impelled by a sinful nature. As with Pelagius, Augustine’s 
experience was reflected in his teaching. His personal experi- 
ence and especially the conflict with Pelagianism led him to 
adopt a system as extreme and erroneous as that he opposed. 

The following are the distinguishing features in the Augus- 
tinian system: (1) Adam was the race, or represented it, and 
the whole human family had their only probation in him. (2) 
He was created with original righteousness, which consisted in 
a determination to holiness, but for probationary purposes he 
was given a power to the contrary which he was forbidden to 
use, but which he did use and consequently lost to himself and 
his descendants. (3) As a result of his sin he became guilty 
and depraved, and because he was the race all men became also 
depraved, guilty, and punishable for hig sin because they are 
said to have sinned in him. Then original sin is both guilt and 
depravity. (4) That depravity is total, and it is said that man 


MODE OF TRANSMISSION OF ORIGINAL SIN 341 


has no power to volitionate good or choose to be saved. (5) 
Salvation is therefore by the sole choice and working of the 
Spirit of God, and man can in no wise cooperate with that effi- 
eacious, irresistible grace which leads him to will to repent and 
obey God. (6) When by his sovereign grace God has saved 
those whom he has elected to save all others are reprobated to 
eternal death. 

‘‘The innovating character of Augustinianism is beyond 
question. His more extreme tenets are not to be found with a 
single one of the preceding fathers’? (H. C. Sheldon, History 
of Christian Doctrine, Vol. I, p. 234). The Augustinian theology 
was widely accepted for some time following its first promulga- 
tion, but with the large majority was gradually given up until 
the catholic belief was much what it had been before Augustine’s 
time. During the Reformation John Calvin again brought the 
principles of Augustine into such favor that for many years 
subsequently to that time they were held by the majority of 
Protestants. But again the extremes of Augustine’s teaching 
have been supplanted by the older views, until at present it is 
held principally by the Presbyterian Chureh and certain 
branches of other bodies. The largest majority of Christian 
bodies reject it. Its teachings that all men are guilty of Adam’s 
sin, which their common sense tells them they had no part in 
committing, that they have no power to choose salvation, and that 
by the sole sovereign will of God some are elected to salvation 
while all others are reprobated to damnation are so contradic- 
tory to men’s sense of justice and the plain statements of Scrip- 
ture that they can not survive long in the faith of thinking 
people. 

3. Arminian Theory.—The Arminian system of theology is so 
named from Arminius, a Dutch theologian of the latter part of 
the sixteenth century, who was prominent in dissenting from 
the strict Calvinism of that period. By Arminianism is not 
meant particularly the teachings of Arminius, who seems not to 
have become wholly disentangled from the prevalent Calvinism, 
but rather that system of theological thought which was repre- 
sented in a general way by the principles of Arminius. That 
doctrinal teaching which has come to be called Arminianism dur- 
ing the last four centuries is the common belief of Christians. 
In its main features it was the prevalent belief prior to Augustine 


342 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


in the early church; since then it has been held by Roman 
Catholics, the Anglican Church, Methodism, and is generally 
held by Christians today. It is the view set forth in preceding 
pages of this work, and we believe it has there been shown to be 
the teaching of the Scriptures. 

Arminianism teaches that the fall of the race was through 
man’s free choice alone, that as primitive holiness consisted in 
a tendency, not a determination, to righteousness, so through 
the fall men have a natural tendency to sin, but that they are 
in no sense guilty of or punishable for Adam’s sin, It is opposed 
to Calvinism on the notable five points of the Remonstrants at 
the Synod of Dort: (1) Conditional election, (2) universal re- 
demption, (3) moral freedom, (4) resistibility of grace, and (5) 
possibility of apostasy. On the question of the effect of Adam’s 
sin on men’s power to do good Pelagianism holds their power 
to do good is unaffected. Semi-Pelagianism says their power to 
do good is weakened, but not destroyed. Calvinism says through 
the fall the power to do good is lost and never restored. Armin- 
ianism holds that the power to do good was lost through the 
fall, but that through divine grace it is restored so man can 
choose to serve God or not. 

II]. Unscriptural Theories of the Transmission of Original Sin 

Of the many theories of the mode of the transmission of 
depravity the three principal ones are (1) the realistic or theory 
of Adam’s natural headship, (2) the representative or theory of 
Adam’s federal headship, and (3) the parentage or genetic law 
theory. 

Three other theories which have claimed not a few adherents 
are: (1) the theory of mediate imputation, which holds that 
guilt is imputed as a consequence of the possession of inherited 
depravity rather than as is held by the theory of immediate 
imputation that imputation of guilt for the first sin precedes 
and is the ground for depravity as a penal infliction; (2) that 
present depravity is due to sinning of the individual in a pre- 
vious existence; and (3) that God knew what each individual 
would have done had he been in Adam’s stead in the primitive 
temptation and therefore imputes guilt to that extent to each in- 
dividual and imparts a corresponding degree of depravity. This 
third theory makes the ground of imputation entirely hypothetic 
and is without any Biblical support. 


MODE OF TRANSMISSION OF ORIGINAL SIN 343 


The first three theories named especially deserve considera- 
tion because they have been held so widely. The realistic and 
representative mode theories should be classed together in that 
they make depravity a penal retribution. Calvinists are divided 
between these two theories. 

1. Realistic Theory—This is the theory of Adam’s natural 
headship. All men are said to have been in Adam when he 
sinned; therefore he was the race; when he sinned the race sin- 
ned, and both his depravity and guilt attach to the race as well 
as they did to himself. This view has had special support in 
this country by W. G. T. Shedd and A. H. Strong. It was 
also the view of Augustine. 

One of its ablest advocates, Dr. Strong, says of this theory, 
“Tt holds that God imputes the sin of Adam immediately to all 
his posterity, in virtue of that organic unity of mankind by which 
the whole race at the time of Adam’s transgression existed, not 
individually, but seminally in him as its head. The total life 
of humanity was then in Adam; the race ag yet had its being 
only in him. Its essence was not yet individualized; its forces 
were not yet distributed ; the powers which now exist in separate 
men were then unified and localized in Adam; Adam’s will was 
yet the will of the species. In Adam’s free act, the will of the 
race revolted from God and the nature of the race corrupted 
itself. The nature which we now possess is the same nature that 
corrupted itself in Adam—not the same in kind merely, but the 
same as flowing to us continuously from him’’ (Outlines of Sys- 
tematic Theology, p. 165). 

The theory assumes the existence of a generic human nature 
prior to its existence in individualized forms. This generic na- 
ture existed wholly in Adam when he sinned. Therefore when 
he sinned the generic human nature sinned, and as Adam was 
condemned for his sin, so the generic human nature shared in 
his condemnation and became depraved and guilty. As a conse- 
quence it is held that as that nature is individualized every per- 
son receives the depravity and guilt of Adam’s sin and deserves 
to be punished because of that guilt attaching to his nature. The 
theory rests on the principle of realism, which assumes that 
genera are essential existences as distinguished from the indi- 
viduals representing them. Viewing man’s generic nature as 
an objective reality, it assumes that this nature, which included 


344 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


both body and spirit, has been divided in some sense, which its 
advocates ean not explain, into all the multiplied millions of 
human beings that have existed. 

The first objection we make to the theory here stated is 
against the principle of realism itself. Generic human nature 
has no actual existence apart from individuals. It is merely an 
abstract mental conception. This is true of genera generally. 
No plant nature has any actual existence apart from the indi- 
viduals of the vegetable kingdom. Likewise in the animal king- 
dom no animal nature exists except in the individual members 
of the species. A generic animal nature has no reality except 
in abstract thought. As much may be said of generic human 
nature. Adam’s body can not be shown to have contained the 
substance of all human bodies. That such a form of matter 
existed in Adam is only an assumption. Of course it is not 
claimed to have existed in him in its bulk. Likewise the theory 
that a generic spiritual nature existed in Adam which has been 
divided to the individuals of all mankind is but an assumption 
that can not be proved. 

Again we object that there can be no responsible sinning 
apart from and prior to personal consciousness. Generic human 
nature, merely as such, could not sin. Only persons sin, and guilt 
attaches only to persons, who possess intellect, sensibility, and 
will, which constitute them persons. Adam’s guilt was personal 
because it was the result of personal agency. Without per- 
sonalization a nature can not sin. But personality belongs to 
the individual and not to a nature. Therefore until we had 
individual existence and personal consciousness we could com- 
mit no sin and incur no guilt. One knows in his own conscious- 
ness that he had no responsibility for the first sin of Adam. His 
common sense revolts from the idea that he deserves to be punish-. 
ed for that sin of Adam, and he instinctively feels such would 
be unjust. Even Dr. Strong, one of its ablest supporters, de- 
scribes the theory as ‘‘an hypothesis difficult in itself.’’ 

Dr. Shedd attempts to illustrate the possibility of the sharing 
of the generic nature in Adam’s guilt by likening its relation to 
the soul, to the relation to the murderer himself of the hand that 
holds the weapon which destroys a life. He assumes that because 
of the hand’s union and oneness with the self-conscious soul it is 
therefore a coagent of the soul in crime and shares its guilt. This 


MODE OF TRANSMISSION OF ORIGINAL SIN 345 


we deny. It is not a coagent with the soul in sinning, but only an 
instrument, and therefore not responsible nor capable of guilt. 
Therefore if, as the illustration is intended to show, generic hu- 
man nature has guilt in the same sense that the hand which took 
the forbidden fruit shared the guilt of Adam’s soul, then that 
generic nature was not responsible and it shared no guilt what- 
ever. The weakness of this illustration is a fair example of the 
weakness of the theory it is used to support. 

A still stronger objection is that if we are responsible for the 
first sin of Adam, we must be likewise responsible for all the 
other sins he committed before the begetting of his children, 
through whom we are descended, as well as for the sins of all 
our ancestors between us and Adam. This theory of the higher 
realism is such that all attempts by its supporters to deny such a 
conclusion are in vain. If we had a real existence in Adam as 
the generic human nature in such a sense that we ineurred 
guilt by that first sin, then no reason can be given why we should | 
not have been equally responsible and guilty for all other sins 
Adam committed before the individuation of that generic nature. 
Also the theory holds that each person receives a non-individ- 
ualized portion of this generic human nature which he transmits 
by propagation, and which he holds in the same manner as Adam 
possessed the whole. ‘Therefore that part of generic human 
nature in one must share in the responsibility and guilt of his 
personal sinning in such a manner that his descendants will 
receive with the generic human nature which he transmits to 
them guilt for his sins as he similarly became guilty for Adam’s 
first sin. 

Then as certainly as we are guilty of the first sin of Adam, 
we are also guilty of every other sin he committed before Seth 
was born, and also we are guilty of all the sins of all our long 
line of ancestors back to Adam which they committed before the 
next member of our ancestry was born. But this is true not 
merely of a single line of parents and so with each generation 
the number doubles. Then assuming there was no intermarriage 
between the lines, five hundred years ago, counting twenty-five 
years to the generation, each of us had no fewer than a million 
ancestors living at one time. If we add to this number all those 
of preceding and subsequent generations the number is incom- 
prehensible. Shall we suppose each of us is guilty of the sum 


346 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


of all the sins of all of these, doubtless including crimes of every 
sort—murder, adultery, theft, and every other? What an un- 
thinkable amount of guilt must belong to each of us if this be 
true! Our individual sins are as nothing in comparison. ‘The 
theory logically leads to such a conclusion. 

But if by generic nature we are responsible and guilty 
by the sinning in Adam and all other ancestors, then no reason 
can be shown why we could not have likewise shared in any 
good works and repentance of Adam and all other ancestors. If 
one’s immediate parents both repented and were pardoned of all 
their guilt before he was begotten, then is it not reasonable to 
believe he inherited no guilt? Any theory which logically leads 
to such conelusions must be fundamentally erroneous. 

In addition to the higher realism which assumes that all are 
cuilty of the first sin because partakers of a generic human 
nature which is said to have had responsibility in the first sin, 
there is a lower form of realism which affirms that we all had 
a germinal or seminal existence in Adam when he committed the 
first sin, and because his will was the will of the race which was 
then in him all willed that sin and were consequently guilty. 
According to this theory all men were in Adam in individualized 
seminal form. All supporters of the theory hold that seminal 
existence in Adam included the bodies of all men, but some 
suppose the soul is immediately created and not transmitted 
by the parents. This theory attempts to show, as does the pre- 
ceding theory, that all men were so identified with Adam that 
they are guilty and depraved because of responsibility in his 
sinning. 

The theory is open to objection on most of the points stated 
in criticism of the higher realism. It fails to show that we had 
a responsible part in the primitive sin. Also logically it makes 
us responsible for all of our ancestral sinning and repenting. 
But this theory is open to another objection peculiar to itself. 
It implies that all men were guilty in their seminal state before 
the seminal entities were developed into personal existences. It 
is held that we were guilty in that seminal state because we 
sinned in that state. But only a person can sin and become 
guilty. The theory further implies that not only those seminal 
existences in Adam which have been developed into a personal 
mode of existence, but also all those seminal existences in him 


MODE OF TRANSMISSION OF ORIGINAL SIN 347 


that never were developed into persons were also guilty and 
deserving of divine punishment, A theory so unthinkable needs 
no further refutation. 

2. Representative Theory.—'l'his is known also as the federal 
theory and the theory of condemnation by covenant. It was 
originally set forth by Cocceius in the seventeenth century. It 
is now held by the Reformed as distinguished from the Lutheran 
Chureh. Its ablest advocate in this country was Dr. Charles 
Hodge. 

According to this theory Adam, at the time created, was 
divinely constituted the representative of the entire human 
race. It is said that God made a covenant, called a covenant 
of works, with Adam as representative of the race, by which his 
primitive probation was the probation of the whole race. Through 
this federal headship, or legal oneness of the race with Adam, 
his obedience in the original probation would have resulted in 
the bestowing of eternal life on all the race, but because of his 
disobedience God imputes the consequent guilt and depravity, 
not only to him, but equally to all his descendants. 

That the foregoing is a fair representation of the theory is 
evident from the following statement. ‘‘God constituted our 
first parent the federal head and representative of his race, and 
placed him on probation, not only for himself, but also for his 
posterity. Had he retained his integrity, he and all his de- 
scendants would have been confirmed in a state of holiness and 
happiness forever. Ag he fell from the estate in which he was 
created, they fell with him in his first transgression, so that 
the penalty of that sin came upon them as well as upon him. 
Men therefore stood their probation in Adam. As he sinned, his 
posterity came into the world in a state of sin and condemnation. 
They are by nature the children of wrath. The evils which they 
suffer are not arbitrary impositions, nor simply the natural 
consequences of his apostasy, but judicial inflictions. The loss 
of original righteousness, and death spiritual and temporal under 
which they commence their existence, are the penalty of Adam’s 
first sin’’ (Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 196). 

All men are guilty of Adam’s first sin and deserve punish- 
ment, according to the realistic theory, because Adam was the 
whole race at the time it was committed; according to the 
federal theory, all are likewise guilty and punishable because 


348 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Adam represented the entire race. The representative theory 
denies that all men had a share in the commission of the first 
sin; also that they have any demerit because of it is denied. 
‘“When it is said that the sin of Adam is imputed to his poster- 
ity, itis not meant that they committed his sin, or were the agents 
of his act, nor is it meant that they are morally criminal for 
his transgression’’ (Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 195). 
Only guilt or desert of punishment for the first sin is laid upon 
all men. This implies the doctrine of imputation which affirms 
that God imputes the guilt of Adam’s sin to us, imputes our 
suilt to Christ, and imputes Christ’s righteousness to us. This 
imputation of punishment to us is not, then, because we have 
sinned, but is only because of a legal oneness with Adam for 
which we were not responsible. 

To the representative theory we object, first, that it is with- 
out support in the Bible. Even Dr. Hodge himself admits that 
the statement that God entered into covenant with Adam ‘‘does 
not rest upon any express declaration of the Scriptures.’’ The 
expression ‘‘new covenant’’ is used, not in contrast with a 
eovenant of works with Adam, but as distinguished from the 
covenant with Israel at Sinai (Heb. 8:8). Likewise the assum- 
ed proofs of a covenant with Adam in Hosea 6:7 is altogether 
too uncertain to form the ground for an important doctrine. 
Even if it were evident that God made a covenant with Adam, 
it would still be necessary for the support of this theory to show 
that Adam was constituted by God the representative of the 
race in relation to that covenant. In view of all which the ablest 
advocates of representativism have set forth in support of it, 
it is still certain that such a covenant and federal headship has 
no support in the Bible. 

Attempts are made to establish the principle of represen- 
tativism by reference to the relations between a nation and its 
ambassador to a foreign nation, an agent and his principal, the 
ward and the guardian, the child and the parent, and especially 
by an appeal to the various Scripture statements which rep- 
resent the evil consequences of sin as passing on from fathers 
to their children even to the third and fourth generation. 
Doubtless there is representation in all these instances, and those 
represented suffer from the wrong course sometimes taken by 
their representative. Yet who would say the evil consequences 


MODE OF TRANSMISSION OF ORIGINAL SIN 349 


which come upon a child because of his father’s drunkenness is a 
punishment upon the child because he was guilty of the sin his 
father committed? In none of these examples of representation 
does the action of the representative involve those represented 
in either guilt or penalty except as to natural consequences. 
Therefore these instances have no value in support of this theory, 
because they are not analogous to the relation it claims exists be- 
tween Adam and his posterity. 

Much dependence is placed in a particular interpretation of 
Rom. 5:12. Both Dr. Hodge in supporting the representative 
and Dr. Strong in teaching the realistic theory endeavor at great 
length to show that this scripture supports his theory, and each 
is certain it furnishes no ground for the view of the other. This 
verse has been a theological battleground for centuries. It has 
been given a variety of interpretations, even by representatives 
of the same school. Doubtless a text whose meaning is so much 
in dispute can not of itself properly be made the foundation for 
a doctrine so fundamental as representativism assumes to be. 

We also object to the theory in its assumption that the race 
had its probation in Adam. There is no support for such an idea 
in either the Scriptures or reason. It is unreasonable that the 
moral condition and desert of countless other moral beings should 
be determined by the choice of one man. We especially object to 
the theory on the ground that it reflects on the justice of God. It 
makes God to hold men responsible for the violation of a covenant 
which they had no part in forming. This assumed covenant is 
not a covenant, but merely a sovereign decree. The justice of 
which it makes so much is not justice, but only arbitrary will. 
It accounts guilty and would punish those who are held to have 
committed no sin. Until God by judicial act imputes sin to 
them the race is innocent. Then, according to the theory, God 
creates sinful souls by making each one with a depraved nature, 
which depravity is a punishment for that guilt imparted, and is 
itself sinful and deserving of punishment. This makes God the 
direct author of sin. Such a theory severely reflects on both the 
justice and holiness of God. 


Ill. Law of Genetic Transmission 


We now come to the consideration of what we conceive to 
be the true theory of the transmission of original sin. The true 


350 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


wmode must be compatible with the true theory of the nature of 
original sin. The nature of original sin has already been defined 
to be a derangement of the moral nature which gives man a 
tendency to sin. The realistic and representative theories of the 
transmission of original sin are attempts to explain its trans- 
mission in harmony with the Augustinian theory of the nature 
of original sin. 

1. The Genetic Law.—Nothing is more certain throughout the 
entire realm of organic nature than the fundamental law that 
all living things propagate after their kind. This law was or- 
dained with the original of the first organic forms. ‘‘ And God 
said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and 
the fruit-tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, 
upon the earth: and it was so’’ (Gen. 1:11). This law is essen- 
tial to the orderly preservation of nature. Without it distinct 
species could not exist. Variations within species are not un- 
common, and these variations are sometimes great, yet underly- 
ing all these is a general similarity between parent and offspring. 
Different varieties of horses may differ in color and form, and 
otherwise, yet as a species they have ever been essentially what 
they now are with the same anatomical structure and also with 
the same instincts and disposition. 

This law of genesis is so uniform in its operation that it 
governs the propagation of living orders generally, including 
man. Not only does the genetic law apply to the propagation 
of the body after its kind, but intellectual and spiritual qualities 
are similarly transmitted. Regardless of the question of the 
origin of the soul, it is certain it is after its kind. 

2. Men Are After Their Kind Morally—That moral depravity 
is the nature of the race at present and that children are born 
with a depraved nature has been shown. They are begotten after 
their kind morally. The genetic law also applies to the trans- 
mission of depravity. This is not only the most reasonable view, 
but is implied in the Scriptures. ‘‘Behold, I was shapen in in- 
iquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me’’ (Psa. 51:5). 
This statement implies, not only that depravity is native, but 
that it is through natural generation. In the inquiry ‘‘who 
ean bring a clean thing out of an unclean?’’ (Job 14:4), the 
idea is that a defiled vessel makes its contents defiled. So man 
is defiled morally because of the moral corruption of his parents. 


MODE OF TRANSMISSION OF ORIGINAL SIN 351 


Had Adam continued in holiness, his offspring would have 
been holy, except for the possible apostasy of individuals who 
would have become depraved and also possibly their descendants. 
It is inconceivable that Adam’s offspring should have been born 
depraved if he had remained holy. The transmission of that 
holiness would have been by the genetic law, and not by any 
judicial imputation of holiness to his children. Likewise when 
he sinned and his nature became consequently corrupted, it is 
altogether reasonable to think depraved nature was transmitted 
according to the genetic law. It is unreasonable to hold that 
depravity is inflicted on men as a punishment on the ground 
of retributive justice. If such were true then it must follow 
that except for that penal infliction depraved parents would beget 
holy children, which would be in violation of the universal genetic 
law. If it be admitted that native depravity is transmitted by 
the genetic law, then the penal character of depravity is ex- 
eluded, for if the transmission of depravity is by a law govern- 
ing the constitution of man, then it can not be a penal infliction 
for gin. 

At this point the question may be asked, Why are children 
not begotten after the nature of the race as it was originally 
constituted, rather than after the depraved condition. Trans- 
mission of the depraved nature is entirely in harmony with a 
fundamental law generally recognized by physical science. 
Biologists have shown that those general characteristics which 
arise naturally, including those inexplainable mutations and vari- 
ations caused by climate, environment, etec., are transmissible. 
Varieties continually being developed within species are the re- 
sult of this law. But characteristics which are the result of 
mutilation or which have been otherwise artificially produced 
are not transmissible. For example, a variety of cattle whose 
nature is to have no horns will propagate after their kind, 
but the dehorning of cattle of horned varieties does not result 
in their offspring being without horns. By sinning, Adam be- 
came sinful in nature and thus determined the sinfulness of the 
race type. The parentage theory of the transmission of depravity 
is thoroughly in harmony with true science. 

This principle of the transmission of acquired characteristics 
also answers another question frequently asked, Why do the 
children of sanctified parents have depraved natures? For those 


352 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


who deny the possibility of entire sanctification in this life the 
question has no interest. But for others it is important, and is 
especially so in view of the fact that observation shows the chil- 
dren of the most holy are depraved. The answer is found in 
the truth that the sanctification of the nature is by grace and 
not by natural change. The removal of depravity, like the 
amputation of the horns of cattle, is not a natural change, and 
the children of fully sanctified parents have the depraved nature 
according to their kind, much as the offspring of dehorned cattle 
have horns as do their kind. This.non-transmission of holiness 
received through grace agrees perfectly with the laws of nature 
as modern science has found them to be. 


PART V 


SALVATION THROUGH CHRIST, 
OR SOTERIOLOGY 





cu : VW 
Aa ah dy. t we i ~ see eee, 
‘ ; ' , « I "?¢ ; i <4 ou it oe we a | 
, 4 i f ' 
b * 
vei.@ f i 
< “4 . } | 
j i UF 
: x —- ‘ A 
f f 
\ A F "Wan ‘~ / 
bru } ‘ i 
' : yA. ‘ 7 
y i ne ri is Bite sa 
ide i ry! ¥ ' A ; a @ ; i ALS ; 
(es ' o A 4 j f £ "we Ae Hl - ie, . . ae 1p - 
‘ ’ ; i! | ] t Ast 4 rach , ari ee ¥ ae. ; : One ¥ 
Pie She ml . ‘ YY na a pie WAT hy Be 4 y | 
e J a on : 7 1. i [ 2) 9 > ‘ae j id ’ 
+ | ari | a4 
eet Paice avi, Leal OA ui 
} Ti wie e Ti teu aie 
7 ( ‘ a b i f, is {, ui heh 
é MWe), aT ee Je ti ‘a | et 
Fj > 


PART V 


SALVATION THROUGH CHRIST, 
OR SOTERIOLOGY 


That division of theology which sets forth the remedy for 
sin and the application of that remedy in individual experience 
is commonly called soteriology. This term is derived from two 
Greek words 6wtmo (soter), ‘‘savior,’’ and Adyos (logos), ‘‘dis- 
course,’’ and means the science of salvation. To this part of the- 
ology belong most of those truths which are peculiar to Christian- 
ity. Under soteriology we deal with the great problems of atone- 
ment for sin and salvation from sin. 


CHAPTER [I 


THE PERSON OF CHRIST 


I. The Doctrine and Its Statement 

1. A Vital Doctrine.—As logical order requires that atone- 
ment be considered before salvation, so a study of the atone- 
ment must be preceded by inquiry concerning the nature or 
person of the Atoner. This question of the person of Christ, or 
Christology, is not one of mere speculative interest, as a certain 
class of modernists would have us believe, but is vitally import- 
ant to Christianity. The character of Christians is a consequence 
of a miraculous divine operation called salvation. But sal- 
vation has its basis in atonement, and the value of that atone- 
ment is dependent upon the dignity and nature of the Atoner. 
Therefore what Christ is determines what Christianity is. Herein 
Christianity is unlike all the great ethnic religions. The charac- 
ter of Mohammedanism or Buddhism is determined wholly by 
the teachings of their founders regardless of the elements con- 
stituting their persons. But Christianity is not so. In both the 
past and present the religious experience of professed Christians 
has been generally in harmony with their views relative to the 
divine-human nature of Christ. In the same measure that Uni- 
tarians and modern religious liberalists have denied the deity of 
Christ, they have denied an objective aspect to the atonement 


and supernatural conversion. The great Christological contro- 
355 


356 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


versies of past centuries were a result of men’s recognition of the 
importance of the issues involved. 

2. Elements of the Doctrine.—The doctrine of the person of 
Christ, like most other essential truths of Christianity, is not 
set forth in the Scriptures in scientific and exact form. Such a 
formulation of the doctrine so far as we have any record did 
not take place until centuries after the New Testament was 
written, when the heretical teachings made a definite statement 
of it necessary. Yet the Christians of the early centuries most 
surely held the true doctrine of the person of Christ. They 
held it as they found its various factors in the Scriptures. 

The constituent elements in the person of Christ as he is 
described in the Scriptures are three. (1) He was truly human. 
So he was known to his apostles and disciples prior to his cruci- 
fixion. He had a physical human body, essentially the same as 
have other men. He was born into the world as a human being, 
his body grew to maturity, suffered pain and weariness, and 
later died as other bodies die. He possessed not only a human 
body, but also a human spirit—a complete human nature. He 
is said to have ‘‘increased in wisdom,’’ which can properly be 
affirmed only on the ground that he possessed a finite human 
spirit. (2) Also in addition to a complete human nature, he pos- 
sessed a complete divine nature. He was truly God. The divine 
nature in its preexistent form before the incarnation was a 
person. (3) Yet Christ was one person, not two, though he 
possessed a complete human and a complete divine nature. This 
is the doctrine of the person of Christ as revealed in the Scerip- 
tures, and as has been commonly held by Christians. Like the 
doctrine of the Trinity, it is profound, it may not be fully com- 
prehensible, and may contain much of mystery, but it does not 
therefore follow that it is not true. Christians believe this 
doctrine because its various elements are clearly taught in the 
Bible. Belief of the doctrine is the unavoidable consequence of 
believing the Scriptures. The Bible proofs of it are yet to be 
shown. 

3. Creedal Statements.—The truths relative to Christ’s per- 
son were at first held in a very practical manner with no attempt 
at a harmony of the various elements by a formulation of the 
doctrine. But thoughtful minds could not long be satisfied with- 
out reconciling the separate facts they held concerning Christ. 


THE PERSON OF CHRIST 307 


The questions must inevitably arise, ‘‘Is Christ God or man? 
If both God and man is he two persons or one? If he has two 
natures in one person how are they related to each other?’’ 
Attempts to answer these questions resulted in various theories, 
some of which were very objectionable because of giving place 
to either the human or divine element at the expense of the 
other. At least six heretical theories of the person of Christ 
gained prominence before the church came to general agree- 
ment on the statement of the doctrine. For a century and a 
half, or beginning prior to the Council of Nicea and continuing 
until the Council of Chalcedon, 451 A. D., the church was torn 
by controversies concerning the person of Christ. 

The Nicene statement of faith was concerned principally with 
the defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. The symbol formu- 
lated by the Council of Chalcedon has to do directly with the 
Christological doctrine. It is the result of the best thought of 
many good and wise men who in defense of the faith had thought 
profoundly, and honestly endeavored to represent all the rele- 
vant facts of Scripture in proper relation. Even though hu- 
manly formulated creeds do not necessarily have divine sanction, 
yet probably no clearer statement of the doctrine of the person 
of Christ has been constructed. 

It is given in Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom as follows: 
“We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, 
teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in man- 
hood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable (rational) soul 
and body; consubstantial (coessential) with the Father accord- 
ing to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us aceording to 
manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten be- 
fore all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in 
these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin 
Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and 
the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged 
in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeable, indivisibly, msepar- 
ably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away 
by the union, but rather the property of each nature being pre- 
served, and concurring in one person and one subsistence, not 
parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, 
and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as 


358 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the prophets from the beginning (have declared) concerning 
him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the 
Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.’’ This 
statement clearly sets forth the different elements of the doc- 
trine and shows their harmony, but no attempt is made to elim- 
inate all mystery from the doctrine. 


Il. Two Natures in Christ 

1. Complete Human Nature in Christ—That Jesus is truly 
man is shown by his calling himself man and being called man. 
He is the ‘‘man of sorrows.’’ He is ‘‘the man Christ Jesus.’’ 
He most frequently designated himself the ‘‘Son of man.’’ 
This title is given him eighty times in the New Testament. 

He had a material body of flesh and blood. ‘‘Forasmuch 
then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also 
himself likewise took part of the same’’ (Heb. 2:14). Jesus 
himself said, ‘‘A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me 
have’’ (Luke 24:39). He was born of the Virgin Mary, and 
his body grew to maturity as do other human bodies. He was 
the descendant of Eve, of the seed of Abraham, and the Son of 
David. He was subject to hunger, thirst, weariness, pleasure, 
pain, and death. He noi only merely ‘‘appeared’’ or ‘‘seemed”’ 
to have a physical body, as was held by the Docete, certain of 
the ancient Gnostics who denied the reality of his human body, 
but he actually had a body. 

But Jesus was not human merely in the sense that he had a 
human body. He also possessed a rational human soul. This is 
not expressly stated in the Scriptures, but it is often clearly im- 
plied and therefore is no less certain. He is said to have ‘‘in- 
creased in wisdom,’’ which is possible only on the ground that 
he had a human spirit, for the divine spirit is omniscient. He 
was also tempted by Satan to ambition and otherwise. God 
could not be thus tempted, and such temptation had nothing to 
do with physical desires. He declared himself ignorant of the 
time of the jJudgment-day, which can be satisfactorily inter- 
preted only on the ground of his possessing a finite mind. His 
soul was ‘‘exceeding sorrowful’’ (Matt. 26:38), he ‘‘rejoiced in 
spirit’? (Luke 10:21), ‘‘feared,’’ ‘‘groaned,’’ and ‘‘wept,’’ all 
of which activities pertain to the human soul rather than to 


THE PERSON OF CHRIST ‘359 


God. Possessing both a human body and soul, Jesus was truly 
man complete, yet without sin. 

2. Complete Divine Nature in Christ—Jesus is also truly God. 
This point was proved at length in support of the Trinity. He 
is called God. Various divine titles are given him. Divine at- 
tributes are ascribed to him. Divine works are attributed to him. 
All things are said to have been created by him. He claimed 
authority to forgive sins. He was accorded worship, which 
he accepted. He has ever been God supreme to Christians. 
He claimed to be one with the Father and equally worthy of 
honor. Therefore he is deity in the highest and truest sense. 
He was truly God as well as truly man. 

3. Incarnation of God in Christ.—The truth of the divine in- 
earnation is further proof of a divine and human nature in 
Christ. The very idea of divine incarnation is that God has 
come into the flesh. But flesh in this connection is not to be 
limited to the material body merely, but includes human nature 
in its entirety. Such a sense of the term is not uncommon in 
the Seriptures. In addition to the many proofs of two natures 
already cited, a number of texts very definitely set forth the 
truth of the incarnation. 

No text is more worthy of citation in proof of the incarna- 
tion than is John 1:1-3, 14. ‘“‘In the beginning was the Word, 
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same 
was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; 
and without him was not anything made that was made... . 
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we 
beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, ) 
full of grace and truth.’’ That the Word is a person is clear 
from his being God, Creator, and from the use of the personal 
pronoun of him. That he is truly God in the highest sense is 
evident from the ascription to him of the attribute of eternity, 
and all the work of creation. It is said of this divine being that 
he became flesh, incarnate, by the assumption of human nature; 
not by the changing of his divine nature into human nature, 
but by the addition of the one to the other. 

Also John opens his first epistle with a statement of the great 
truth of the divine incarnation. ‘‘That which was from the 
beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our 
eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, 


360 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


of the Word of Life; (for the life was manifested, and we have 
seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, 
which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)’’ 
(1 John 1:1, 2). This text is almost equal as proof of the incar- 
nation to that quoted from the fourth Gospel. The Word is 
deseribed as eternal, therefore as being God, and yet as being 
with the Father, and as being life in his essential nature. He is 
said to have been manifest in such a sense that he could be 
known to men by their senses; therefore he was manifested in 
a material body, yet retaining his divinity so those to whom he 
was manifested recognized him as that ‘‘eternal life.’’ 

A fuller statement on the subject is Phil. 2: 6-9, where of 
Jesus it is said, ‘‘ Who, being in the form of God, thought it not 
robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputa- 
tion, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made 
in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he 
humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death 
of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and 
given him a name which is above every name.’’ Before Jesus 
was made in the “‘likeness’’ of men he was in the form of God. 
The form of a thing is determined by its nature. He was in 
the form of God because he was God. Also he was equal with 
God, implying that in some sense he was related to God. Here 
Paul sets forth the same truth as does John, that Jesus was 
God and yet with God, which implies that there are two who 
are God. Further it is said this Divine Being was made in the 
‘‘likeness’’ of men, and had the ‘‘fashion’’ of a man. As was 
said of ‘‘form’’ in verse 6, so ‘“‘likeness’’ and ‘‘fashion’’ imply 
that he was man. They are determined by the nature. Then 
this text teaches that the Divine Being took upon him human 
nature. 

‘‘God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen 
of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, 
received up into glory’’ (1 Tim. 3:16). Regardless of any 
question as to the correct reading of the first word in the text, 
whether it be ‘‘God”’ or ‘‘he,’’ it is certain from the following 
words that Christ is the one meant. That he was the divine Son 
of God is clear from many other texts. This text then is a clear 
declaration that God ‘‘was manifest in the flesh,’’ or became 
incarnate. Other texts in support of divine incarnation are 


THE PERSON OF CHRIST 361 


Rom. 1:2-5; 9:5 and Heb. 2:14. ‘‘Forasmuch then as the 
children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself like- 
wise took part of the same.”’ 

The foregoing texts teach a divine incarnation; not merely 
an incarnation of the divine nature, divine attributes, or divine 
principle, but an incarnation of the personal Son. Not only the 
Son, but the Father and the Holy Spirit possess the divine na- 
ture; yet only the Son is said to have come in the flesh. Only 
a person could create all things and do and be all that is affirmed 
of him who is said to have taken human nature. Therefore the 
personality of Christ, though unique, was not an entirely new 
one, but that which had ever existed modified by the assumption 
of human nature. 

4. Mode of the Incarnation.—According to clear statements of 
the Scriptures and the common faith of the church the inecarna- 
tion was effected through conception by the Holy Spirit and the 
virgin birth. The reality of the virgin birth has been questioned 
by not a few in recent years. Such questions are raised, not 
only by avowed infidels, but also by professed Christians who 
are committed to the modern higher criticism. The objection 
to the virgin birth seldom stands alone. In almost every in- 
stance those who reject it are also unsound concerning the deity 
of Christ, often denying the divinity of Christ altogether. 

The attack is usually made at the point of the virgin birth 
because it is supposed the evidence for this miracle is more 
easily disposed of than that for more public miracles such as 
Jesus’ healings or the resurrection. The virgin birth is repre- 
sented as a legend belonging to an ignorant, uncritical people 
and as being unworthy of belief in this enlightened age. It is 
attacked by the same methods the older foes of Christianity 
have employed against it—insinuation, and by likening it to the 
coarse Greek and Roman myths of heroes who, it is claimed, 
were descended from the Gods. 

The objection is sometimes made that the virgin birth was 
not necessary to the incarnation of God. In reply we answer 
that it can not be shown that it was not necessary. Possibly 
divine omniscience knew of another method whereby the incar- 
nation could have been effected. But the objection is irrelevant. 
Even if the virgin birth was not necessary to the divine incar- 
nation, what method of the entrance of the Divine into the flesh 


362 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


could be more conducive to men’s comprehension and belief of 
it? From this viewpoint the virgin birth is a reasonable method. 
But the ground for belief in it is the statements of the Scriptures. 

The leading statements concerning the virgin birth are found 
in Matt. 1: 18-25 and in Luke 1, 2. Here it is represented, not 
hy brief and obscure allusions, but by detailed descriptions of 
it, so no question remains as to the sense of the statements of 
the writers. Matthew affirms of Mary, who was espoused to 
Joseph, that ‘‘before they came together, she was found with 
child of the Holy Ghost’’ (v. 18). He quotes the angel as say- 
ing, ‘‘That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost’’ (v. 
20). Then he gives a quotation from Isa. 7:14, ‘‘A virgin 
shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall 
eall his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with 
us’’ (v. 23). ‘‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the 
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that 
holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son 
of God’’ (Luke 1: 35). 

Here the doctrine under consideration has sure ground. 
Those who accept the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God 
need no more certain evidence. Only persons who question the 
eredibility of the Biblical narrative disbelieve these statements. 
This is not the proper place to discuss the divine authority and 
inspiration of the Scriptures. The biological argument is with- 
out force to all except those who deny all miracles. 


III. Union of Two Natures in One Person 

1. Personal Oneness of Christ—By citation of several plain 
texts of Scripture it has been already shown that both divine 
and human attributes belong to Christ. But attributes must in- 
here in a substance or a nature. There can be no extension 
apart from material substance, nor thought apart from an im- 
material being which thinks. The attributes of matter are al- 
ways connected with material substance, and those of mind with 
a spiritual nature. Therefore divine and human attributes in 
Christ must have their basis in a real existence of both a 
divine and a human nature in Christ. And by these two natures 
is meant divine and human substances, not mere manifestations 
of divine and human operations. Christ had two natures in the 


THE PERSON OF CHRIST 363 


sense that he possessed two sets of attributes or qualities—the 
human and the divine. 

But two natures do not necessarily require two persons. 
Christ was one person combining two distinct natures in per- 
sonal oneness by a unique and mysterious bond. Such is clearly 
stated in the ancient church symbols and has ever been the com- 
mon belief of Christians. Oneness of personality of Christ is 
implied in the Scriptures. In all his sayings there is not a single 
hint that he was two persons, but he ever spoke of himself as a 
single person. Between persons of the Trinity the different 
divine personalities are indicated by the use of such pronouns 
as I, thou, and he, but between the divine and human natures 
of Christ no such thing is recorded. In all his conduct and as 
he was known to those most intimately associated with him he 
appears as one person. Further Scriptural evidence of personal 
oneness will appear later in showing that the powers and attri- 
butes belonging to both natures are ascribed to the one Christ. 

Like the doctrine of the Trinity, the idea of personal one- 
ness of the two natures is a great mystery. It is probably even 
more difficult for thought than is the idea of three persons in 
one substance. But as that profound truth is believed because 
of a sure ground in divine revelation, so it is reasonable to be- 
lieve the truth of Christ’s personal oneness. It is natural and 
not improper to seek an explanation of the problem of Christ- 
ology—to show how he ean be truly God and truly man and yet 
but one person. It may be a question to what extent such an ex- 
planation is possible to theological science because of the limita- 
tions of human knowledge. But it is comforting to know full 
comprehension of the subject is not essential to one’s enjoying 
the benefits of Christ’s atoning work. Devout contemplation 
need not wait to appreciate the fact of the divine incarnation 
until speculative thought has solved all mystery in relation to 
the subject. To do so would be as unreasonable as to refuse to 
eat food until full understanding is attained of the mode by 
which the body assimilates its food. 

Even if the mystery of Christ’s nature is inscrutable, it is at 
least important to show that it involves no impossibility or self- 
contradiction. Because the person of Christ is unique, nothing 
in human experience is analogous to the union of the two na- 
tures in him. Dr. Charles Hodge has illustrated it by the union 


364 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


of the physical and spiritual natures of man in a single person- 
ality. But the illustration is not parallel in that the physical 
nature alone possesses no personality as does both the human 
and divine natures which became one person in Christ. Yet 
the illustration has much value in showing that the union of 
man’s soul and body in one person, which is a certain fact of 
consciousness, is also an insoluble mystery. We are conscious 
of possessing a material body having the various common proper- 
ties of matter, and also a spirit which is entirely different in 
substance from matter, with none of its properties, but with 
qualities of an entirely different kind. We are aware through 
consciousness that we are one person—that the body and spirit 
are united, but the nature of that union is incomprehensible to 
us. In view of a fact of consciousness so familiar yet so myster- 
ious, it is not unreasonable to believe on the authority of divine 
revelation that very God and very man might be constituted 
one person in Christ. 

2. Christ Is God-Man.—In some sense according to the Scrip- 
tures Christ is two, in another sense he is one. As to nature he 
is two, as to personality one. He possesses a complete divine 
nature and a complete human nature; as to nature he is God 
and man, but as to person he is but one—God-man. He is 
theanthropic in personality, but not in nature. This is clearly 
set forth in the Scriptures and is so held by Christians in gen- 
eral. Both divine and human attributes appear in the life of 
Christ, and as already stated these two sets of attributes have 
their basis in two distinct natures. The personal oneness of 
Christ involves no mingling of these two natures. They ever 
remain distinct. Copper and zine combined constitute a third 
metal, brass. But the divine and human natures in Christ do 
not constitute a divine-human, or theanthropie nature. Neither 
is there a transference of divine attributes to the human, nor of 
human attributes to the divine. Attributes are characteristics 
of the nature, and to transfer divine attributes to human nature 
would be to make it divine. Attributes are not transferable. 
The characteristics of body and spirit are not transferable. 
Spiritual matter would be self-contradictory. There is a com- 
munion of divine and human attributes in the person of Christ, 
but no communication of attributes of one nature to the other. 

Christ is one, or theanthropic, only in personality, but in 


THE PERSON OF CHRIST 365 


this sense he is really one. The divine nature does not dwell in 
Christ as the Spirit of God dwells in his people. Such a union 
would constitute no personal oneness. The personal oneness of 
the divine and human natures is ag real as that of the physical 
and spiritual natures in men. Personality belonged to the di- 
vine nature of Christ prior to the inearnation, but his human 
nature had no existence and certainly no distinct personality 
of its own at any time. Yet when the logos became incarnate 
the personality of the second person of the Trinity must have 
been modified by its union with human nature. Christ possessed 
both divine and human facts of consciousness, yet he was one 
person. This union of the divine and human natures in one 
person in Christ was necessary to the atonement. Without it 
his suffering and death must have been that of a mere man. 
But with a theanthropic personality suffering for man’s sin, a 
dignity is given to the offering for sin that is equal to every 
demand. 

3. Effect of Personal Union of Two Natures.—As a consequence 
of a human and a divine nature united in one person the Scrip- 
tures affirm attributes and refer acts of the divine nature to 
Christ as human, of the human nature to Christ as divine, and 
of either the divine or human natures to the theanthropic per- 
son of Christ. So of man it may be truly said that he is both 
mortal and immortal, material and spiritual, of the dust of the 
earth and a child of God. 

When Jesus said, ‘‘Before Abraham was I am,’’ he affirmed 
of his person, including human nature, what was true only of 
his divine nature. A similar declaration is, ‘‘No man hath as- 
cended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even 
the Son of man which is in heaven.’’ His coming down from 
heaven is true only of his divinity, yet it is affirmed of him as 
‘‘man.’’ On the other hand, many facts are predicated of his 
person as divine which are true only of his human nature. ‘‘The 
Church of God which he purchased with his own blood.’’ Here 
the blood by which the church is purchased is designated the 
blood of God. Yet Jesus’ body belonged to his human nature. 
They ‘‘erucified the Lord of glory.’’ It was the body of Jesus 
that was nailed to the cross, yet it is here affirmed the Lord of 
slory, the divine being, was crucified. Likewise because the 
person born of Mary was the ‘‘Son of God,’’ therefore she may 


366 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


properly be called the ‘‘mother of God,’’ as Jesus’ blood is 
ealled the blood of God. And as God is said to have been born, 
so it is true that ‘‘God died.’’ Such facts are possible only on 
the ground of Christ’s theanthropic personality. A failure to 
recognize in him a single theanthropic personality results in the 
Bible appearing to be filled with inexplainable paradoxes. 

IV. Criticism of Christological Errors 

A review and eriticism of the different ancient and modern 
heretical doctrines concerning the person of Christ is helpful to 
a clear understanding of the true doctrine. The true doctrine 
has been stated. What is now to be said will show in a measure 
what is not the true doctrine. Only the outstanding ancient 
errors are described together with what are considered the most 
important modern errors. 

1. The Ebionites.—Ebionism has been described as ‘‘ Judaism 
within the pale of the Christian church.’’ The Ebionites re- 
garded Christ as the promised Messiah, but because the idea of 
Christ’s divinity appeared to them incompatible with the truth 
of the oneness of God so strongly affirmed in the Old Testament, 
they denied his divinity and held that he was a mere man. 
Some of them allowed his virgin birth, while others denied it. 
They held plain humanitarianism of Christ. Because it denied 
that Christ was truly God incarnate it was wrong. 

2. The Gnostics.—Gnosticism was pagan philosophy intro- 
duced into the church. Its error was the opposite of Ebionism 
in that it denied that Christ had a physical body. It held that 
matter was not created by God, but had another origin and is 
essentially evil. Therefore, Gnostics reasoned, the holy Christ 
could not possess a body of this intrinsically evil matter. Many 
of them regarded his appearing to have a body as an illusion, 
and were consequently called Docetze, which means to appear, 
to seem to be. Others explained away his. humanity in other 
ways. The apostle John in both his Gospel and first epistle 
opposes this heresy, which was already finding a place among 
Christians, by his many declarations of Christ’s incarnation. 
‘“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come 
in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist’’ 
(1 John 4:38). Gnosticism was also objectionable in its denial 
to Christ of real divinity. He was regarded as an emanation 
from God and therefore inferior to God. 


THE PERSON OF CHRIST . 367 


3. The Arians.—The doctrinal error of Arius was especially 
in respect to the person of Christ. By mistaking the temporary 
subordination of the Son to the Father for a permanent in- 
equality he took the unscriptural position that Christ is not very 
God consubstantial with the Father, but that there was a time 
when he did not exist and therefore lacked the divine attribute 
of eternity. He was regarded as having been created, yet the 
highest and first of all created beings. Arianism held that he 
was like God, as opposed to the Biblical teaching that he is God. 
Because of this it was rejected by the church. 

4, The Apollinarians—As Arianism denied the integrity of 
the divine nature in Christ, and as Gnosticism rejected the real- 
ity of his human nature, Apollinarianism denied the integrity 
of his human nature by declaring he had no rational human 
mind, but only the divine spirit. It was an attempt to avoid 
the difficulties of two complete natures being united in one per- 
son. It was based on the trichotomic theory that man’s consti- 
tution has three elements—the physical body, the rational mind 
or spirit, and an intermediate element, the animal soul, which 
was supposed to be the seat of the sensuous nature. Apollina- 
rianism held that Christ had a human body and animal soul, 
but no human spirit, and that the divine logos supplied the place 
of the human mind. It allowed to Christ only the lower part 
of human nature, so he was not truly man. We object to Apol- 
linarianism, first because trichotomy, its necessary basis, is an 
unprovable theory, as was shown in preceding pages. But the 
disproof of Apollinarianism is in its failure to account for the 
many facts in Jesus’ life that are explainable only on the ground 
that he had a human spirit; for example, he was tempted in all 
points like as we are. 

5. The Nestorians.—While Apollinarianism sacrificed the in- 
tegrity of the human nature of Christ to make sure of his one- 
ness, Nestorianism on the other hand sacrificed his oneness in 
the interests of the integrity of the two natures. It held that 
the logos inhabited or dwelt in the human nature somewhat as 
is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It claimed to hold per- 
sonal oneness of Christ, but its various explanations of the rela- 
tionship of the divine and human amounted to a rejection of 
that oneness. Nestorians would not attribute to the one person 
of Christ, which they professed to allow, the attributes of each 


368 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


nature. They rejected the Scripture statement concerning the 
blood of God (Acts 20:28). Such a position really amounted 
to a denial of one person in Christ. 

6. The Eutychians.—This error is the opposite of the Nestor- 
ian, and was supported by the opposers of the latter. The Hu- 
tychians virtually denied that Christ possessed two natures. They 
admitted that before the incarnation there were two natures, but 
held that these two natures were mingled so a third nature was 
formed, whether the divine became humanized or the human dei- 
fied. But they commonly illustrated the method of unification as 
the human nature being like a drop-of vinegar cast into the ocean ; 
as it is lost in the ocean, so was the human nature of Christ lost 
in his divine nature. Therefore the theory admitted but one 
nature in Christ, or was monophysitic. It was in this respect 
practically identical with Docetism, and as surely fails to ac- 
count for the many human facts in the person and life of Christ 
as described in the Bible. 

7. The Lutheran Theory—The Lutheran Christology holds 
all that is set forth on the subject in the ancient church symbols, 
but in addition it holds that the human nature of Christ became 
possessed of divine attributes as a result of its being united with 
the divine nature in one person. Certainly the Bible teaches 
that whatever may be affirmed of either nature may be affirmed 
of the person of Christ, but the Lutheran theory claims that 
whatever attributes may be affirmed of one nature may also be 
affirmed of the other nature. It especially holds that the human 
nature has the divine attributes, particularly omnipresence. 
Though this theory has been held in a variety of forms among 
them, and as to its exact statement has been a matter of great 
internal controversy, yet it hag been tenaciously held from the 
time of Luther to the present. 

This theory of the omnipresence of the body of Christ is im- 
portant to the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation—the doc- 
trine that the real body and blood of Christ are present in the 
elements of the Lord’s Supper. The ascription of omnipresence 
to the body of Christ was demanded for consistency by their 
strong emphasis of the consubstantiation theory. In spite of 
the fact that Lutherans deny that their Christology was deter- 
mined by their theory of the eucharist, others have generally 
believed it was so determined. 


THE PERSON OF CHRIST 369 


In objection to the Lutheran theory of the person of Christ 
it may be said, first, that the fact that Lutheranism was from its 
beginning committed to consubstantiation is reason for doubt 
that its Christology was not made to conform to that theory of 
the eucharist. A second objection is that it is inconsistent. 
Though it affirms a communication of attributes between the di- 
vine and human natures and holds that the human received the 
divine attribute of omnipresence, yet it denies that the divine 
nature was affected by or received anything from the human 
nature. In this it is one-sided. A third objection is the absence 
of any Scriptural support for the theory. What is true of either 
nature is regarded by the Scriptures as true of his person, but 
no text can fairly be interpreted to teach that what is true of 
one nature is true of the other nature. A fourth objection is 
that the Bible teaches that Christ was truly human, and the 
Lutheran idea that the divine attributes in Christ’s nature were 
hidden is a mere assumption in favor of the theory. A last 
objection to the Lutheran Christology is that it is impossible to 
separate attributes from the substance in which they inhere. 
Attributes are not transferable. Besides if the human becomes 
omnipresent, then the finite becomes infinite, which is a contra- 
diction in terms. 

8. The Socinian Theory.—The Socinian Christology as at first 
heid was purely humanitarian and therefore practically iden- 
tical with the ancient Ebionism. It held Christ was a mere man 
as to his essential nature. Yet he was regarded as having a 
miraculous conception, as being sinless, as having been espe- 
cially endowed by the Holy Spirit, and as having been tempor- 
arily taken up to heaven prior to the beginning of his ministry. 
Much, if not all, of the supernatural originally affirmed of Christ 
by Socinians is denied by those who are at present known as 
Socinians. A mere statement of this theory is sufficient disproof 
of it in view of what has been said in previous pages, and even 
for the casual reader of the Scriptures. 

9. The Kenotic Theory.—In its general aspects this theory is 
the opposite of the Lutheran. It is so called from the Greek 
kenosis, a form of which is found in Phil. 2:7. There Christ 
is said to have emptied himself (see A. S. V.) in becoming 
incarnate. This Christology assumes the Logos emptied himself 
of his divine attributes or limited them to the measure of the 


370 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


human. In doing so he ceased to be omniscient, omnipotent, and 
omnipresent. The theory has been held in varying forms by 
leading advocates. It endangers the doctrine of a human and 
divine nature united in one person. Further objections are that 
though it professes to have its basis in Seripture, it fails to 
substantiate that claim by any proper interpretations. The text 
most relied upon, Phil. 2:7, does not state that Christ emptied 
himself of divine attributes. The context implies that he emp- 
tied himself of the divine glory and exalted station he held before 
the inearnation. But another difficulty for the theory is to show 
how he could empty himself of divine attributes without ceasing 
to be divine. It has been previously shown that attributes al- 
ways inhere in a substance or a nature and can not exist apart 
from it. Therefore to give up divine attributes in favor of 
human characteristics is impossible without a transmutation of 
the divine Logos into humanity. But this leads to another dif- 
ficulty, for God is immutable. Also if Christ ceased to be di- 
vine the divine Trinity ceased to exist. Again if Christ pos- 
sessed no truly divine nature his atonement could not be regarded 
as of infinite efficacy. For these and other reasons the kenotie 
theory is unworthy of acceptance. 


CHAPTER II 
RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 


J. Preliminary Questions 

1. Offices of Christ—As the Savior of men, Christ is described 
in the Scriptures as king, prophet, and priest. So he is 
represented in Old Testament predictions of his Messianic 
character and work. Among the people of Israel the kingly, 
prophetical, and priestly were distinct offices usually held by 
different individuals. In Christ they are all three combined. 
Yet they represent distinct aspects of his redemptive work and 
are real offices. 

Our Lord was truly king even during his earthly life, but 
especially is he now king. He sits on David’s throne in the 
sense that he rules over God’s people. In this aspect he saves 
men by his beneficent rule, by his greatness, power, majesty, and 
supremeness. He is the deliverer and protector of his people. He 
is prophet, not in the sense of predictor of future events merely, 
but in the broader sense of the term as revealer of the will of 
God to man. He is prophet in the same sense that he is the 
divine Logos. He spoke as one having authority. The word of 
the Lord came to the Old Testament prophets, but Jesus was 
himself the ‘‘Word.’’ He performs the important function of 
revealing to men the character of God and the way of salvation. 
But this aspect of Christ’s redemptive work must not be em- 
phasized to the exclusion of the priestly, as has been done by 
Socinians. Whatever may be our need of instruction, we need 
more than instruction. 

In his priestly office Christ appears ag atoner. In this char- 
acter he makes satisfaction for sin by propitiating God through 
sacrificial suffering. He becomes a mediator between God and 
man, an intercessor or an advocate. Christ is the true priest. 
Melchisedek and Aaron were but types of him. He alone has 
provided an effectual covering for sin. 

2. Sense of Reconciliation.—IJn theological usage reconciliation 
may be defined as a bringing of God and man into union, and is 
synonymous with atonement. The word rendered ‘‘atonement”’ 
in Rom. 5:11 by the common version is in the American Re- 
vised Version rendered ‘‘reconciliation.’’ Of the two words, 


‘‘atonement’’ is the more commonly used in theology. The 
371 


372 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


English word ‘‘atonement’’ is derived from the phrase “‘at one’’ 
and therefore signifies harmony of relationship. But while its 
etymological sense is not out of harmony with its theological 
meaning, yet we must look elsewhere for an adequate definition 
of it. Broadly, atonement means ‘‘any satisfaction, amends, 
reparation, or expiation made for wrong or injury; something 
suffered, done, or given by way of propitiation or equivalent.’’ 
Definitions of the atonement of Christ vary according to the 
particular ‘‘theory’’ of the atonement that is held. A complete 
definition of the atonement would amount to a full statement 
of the doctrine. But for our present purpose it may be defined 
as the expiation of sin and the propitiation of God by the vicar- 
ious sufferings of Christ, on the ground of which God can pardon 
sin in full consistency with his personal holiness and the dignity 
of his just law. 

3. The Fact of Atonement and the Doctrine.—It is not the doc- 
trine of the death of Christ that saves men, but the death itself. 
The atonement was made long before men attempted to formulate 
the doctrines concerning it. Very many devout Christians who 
have never attempted a formulation of the doctrine have trusted 
in the great truth of Christ’s atonement to the saving of their 
souls. Therefore a clear distinction exists between the fact 
of atonement and all theories of its nature. Christians gener- 
ally believe Christ made reconciliation for sin, because the Bible 
definitely affirms it. The Bible also provides the elements from 
which a construction of the doctrine has been attempted. But 
no theory thus constructed has ever gained general acceptance. 
The important thing then is the fact that reconciliation has 
been made, and the thing of next importance is that men exercise 
a saving faith in that fact. So far there is no cause for any 
doubt or difference of views. 

But as to why atonement is necessary to salvation and how 
the death of Christ saves, many theories have been set forth. 
One author enumerates fifteen theories that have come into more 
or less prominence. The much controversy of the past has 
tended to repel some at the present time from the study of the 
subject. In recent years there has come a disposition with 
some to despair of the possibility of arriving at a certain knowl- 
edge of the doctrine of the atonement of Christ. ‘‘The excuse 
for such despair hes in the bewildering variety of explanations 


RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 373 


that have been given, and the apparently successful criticism of 
most of them by the advocates of the rest. That appearance is 
partially deceptive. Those who look carefully into the leading 
accounts will find that they are complementary one to another, 
that each represents a real aspect of the whole, and that they 
are mutually exclusive chiefly because of their exaggeration of 
the aspects which they represent’’ (J. S. Lidgett, The Spiritual 
Principle of the Atonement, P. 5). 

Probably a truth so profound as that of the atonement may 
not be perfectly understood by finite minds, yet in view of all 
the Scriptures state on the subject it is reasonable to believe a 
doctrine of the atonement is possible. Evidently a rationale of 
the atonement is not possible by mere speculation apart from 
the revelation of the truth concerning it in the Bible. We are 
dependent upon the Scriptures for the elements from which the 
true doctrine must be constructed. These elements include, not 
only the direct statements of inspiration, but also all truths 
learned by sound reasoning from those truths and by sound 
reasoning from other doctrines which have their basis in the 
statements of the Scriptures. Man’s mind is so constituted that 
it has an inevitable tendency to seek for the philosophy of things. 
There is no legitimate objection to attempting to show how the 
cross saves. It is unreasonable to assume that because full 
knowledge of the subject is impossible we must therefore be 
content with no understanding of it. 

The doctrine of the atonement is important. Like other 
fundamental doctrines of Christianity, it is important for the 
determining of other doctrines as they also are determinative of 
it. The constitution of the mind is such that it requires con- 
sistency and can not rest in holding as truth ideas that are 
contradictory or mutually exclusive. However incomplete may 
be one’s theory of the atonement, it is important that one do 
not hold a theory that is fundamentally wrong. To do so will 
usually lead to unsoundness in one’s doctrine of salvation, as is 
shown by history. The Socinian theory of the atonement is 
determined by its theory of sin and of the person of Christ. 
Likewise its theory of salvation is such as is required by its 
doctrine of atonement. No other theory of salvation is logically 
permissible to the other doctrines of the system. Also the Cal- 
vinistic system with its particular theory of sin and depravity 


374 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


holds a limited atonement and affirms that Christ suffered the 
exact amount that all the elect should suffer for their sins, which 
insures their salvation. Consequently their theory of salvation 
by election must logically follow. As one doctrine logically 
determines another in any system, so in the true system each 
doctrine must be interpreted or constructed in harmony with 
all of the others, and all must be in harmony with the Scriptures. 
Il. Theories of Salvation Without a Reconciliation 

Before setting forth the Christian doctrine of reconciliation 
it is well that we first take some notice of those theories which 
either deny the necessity of atonement for effecting salvation or 
deny the possibility of pardon on any ground. To show the 
falsity of these theories is to show that atonement is necessary 
to salvation. 

1. Impossibility of Pardon.—This theory denies salvation in 
any real sense. It affirms that forgiveness of sin is impossible 
in a perfect government. The executive of a human govern- 
ment may properly remit the penalty because of the fact that 
human legislators may make unjust laws, judges may misapply 
the laws, Juries may misunderstand the evidence, witnesses may 
intentionally or ignorantly misrepresent the facts, or the viola- 
tion of the law may have been due to excusable ignorance. But 
it is reasoned that in the divine government the laws are abso- 
lutely just, rightly applied, and penalty is according to absolute 
justice; therefore it can not under any circumstances be re- 
mitted. The theory further declares that when penalty has 
been suffered, then will follow endless blessedness. It is the 
theory of universalism. 

But the Bible teaches that God will pardon the sinner and 
save him from penalty. The future blessedness it offers is 
through salvation from penalty by the atonement. Those who 
teach blessedness after penalty regard sin lightly and its penalty 
as trifling. They assume that much of the suffering for sin is 
in this life and that even for greater sins it continues but for a 
comparatively short time in the next life. Such a view is opposed 
to the convictions of those whose moral judgments are most 
worthy of consideration, and also to the plain teachings of 
Seripture that the penalty for sin is everlasting. In Matt. 25: 
46 it is said, ‘‘ And these shall go away into everlasting punish- 
ment: but the righteous into life eternal.’’ In the original of 


RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 375 


this text the same word that measures the duration of the pun- 
ishment of the wicked describes also the duration of the happi- 
ness of the righteous. With this view blessedness after penalty 
is excluded. But the Scriptures teach and men intuitively feel 
that there is mercy and pardon in God. 

2. Forgiveness by Divine Prerogative—This theory reasons 
that God is an absolute sovereign, therefore can pardon sin if 
he wills, and that because he is kindly disposed he will if he can. 
Therefore it is assumed that there is no bar to pardon and con- 
sequently that God freely pardons all sin on these grounds. This 
theory is the opposite of the one previously reviewed. But the 
assumption of such universal pardon is opposed to the facts of 
history, to experience, and to the plain statements of the Bible. 
The casual observer knows that sin is punished now in this life 
in his own experience and in that of others. The history of 
mankind is replete with examples of penalty inflicted, which is 
sure evidence that sin is not pardoned freely. If God could 
pardon by prerogative and were disposed to do so, as is affirmed, 
then why these innumerable examples of infliction of penalty? 
The Bible record abounds with examples of punishment for sin 
and warnings against it. The theory under review makes these 
meaningless. 

The ability to pardon sin is not a question of sovereignty. 
It is not irreverent to say God can not do some things. God 
can not lie. He is limited by his perfections. He can not change 
his essential nature. He can not do evil, because he is perfectly 
good. He can not pardon the impenitent sinner except by atone- 
ment without gross violation of his holiness. That attribute of 
holiness in him which excludes all evil from him can no more 
approve evil in other moral creatures. Likewise such sovereign 
forgiveness without atonement would be subversive of the divine 
government. God has given just laws and has threatened pen- 
alty for their violation. A law without a penalty for its viola- 
tion is useless. But if a penalty be not inflicted on the 
offender or if other measures be not taken to preserve the dig- 
nity of the law the government ceases to exist and the ruler is 
despised by his subjects. If it be said that some offenders might 
be thus pardoned while others are punished to preserve respect 
for government, we object that no such practise is possible in 
the impartial government of a good God. If pardon is so 


376 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


granted it must be universal. But such a course would mean 
that government would virtually cease to exist, and that for all 
practical ends obedience and sin would have no distinction. 

3. Pardon or Repentance.—Repentance is especially urged as 
a sufficient ground for pardon; therefore atonement is not 
needed. It is reasoned that when one commits an offense against 
his fellow men and then comes to the offended in repentance, 
confessing his sin and humbly asking pardon, they forgive him 
because of the evidence of sincere repentance. Surely, it is said, 
God, whose love is much greater, will forgive those who sincerely 
repent of their sins against him. Doubtless repentance is an im- 
portant ground for forgiveness, and is clearly taught as such in 
the Seriptures. But the question is, is it the only necessary 
condition for pardon? Between man and man it, with proper 
adjustments as to injury done, is ordinarily the only condition 
necessary. But the relation between the sinner and God is not 
parallel to that between man and man. God is moral ruler. It 
is not merely an adjustment of personal feelings with God in 
relation to the sinner, but his personal holiness and good law 
must be vindicated. The purpose of the infliction of penalty is 
to accomplish this. In addition to repentance, the ends of pen- 
alty must be achieved. 

Also divine pardon of sin is not possible on the ground of 
repentance alone, because naturally man can not truly repent 
of sin. This is due to the depravity of his nature which con- 
stitutes him naturally selfish and rebellious toward God. Only 
as godly sorrow is wrought in the heart of the sinner by the 
gracious working of the Spirit, which working is itself granted 
only through the atonement, can he truly repent. This gracious 
operation in effecting godly sorrow is not independent of the 
will of the sinner, but is by God’s merey through Christ.. Any 
repentance that involves no sincere sorrow because a good and 
kind Creator has been unjustly treated and grieved, but has its 
basis only in selfish advantage and fear of punishment, is itself 
sinful and no proper ground for pardon. Every sinner will 
sooner or later repent of his sinning in this sense when he comes 
to suffer penalty. If pardon were proper on such grounds, then 
all would repent, all penalty would be remitted, and the holiness 
of God and of his good law would be despised. i 


RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 377 


Ill. Biblical Statements Concerning the Atonement 

In the formulation of any Christian doctrine exegesis should 
always precede doctrinal construction. For the devout believer 
in the Bible as divine revelation there is no appeal from its 
statements. Doctrine must accord with its statements; therefore 
they must first be known. It is especially important to examine 
the Biblical teaching concerning the atonement before attempt- 
ing a rationale of it, because of the many conflicting theories, 
all claiming the support of Scripture, and the disposition on the 
part of not a few persons to doubt the possibility of our under- 
standing its nature. But in the Bible we can be assured of cer- 
tain knowledge on the subject. If all points of inquiry are not 
made clear there, we are sure that what is stated is true. 

Here our task consists in careful exegesis. It is important, 
however, that we do not single out particular texts, but exhibit 
the teachings of the Bible as a whole, that no important texts 
be left out of view which would modify or invalidate a conclu- 
sion drawn from other texts. For brevity we choose to classify 
the texts cited according to subject rather than to examine 
them in their order in the canon or as they appear in the differ- 
ent authors or books of the Bible. 

1. Christ Died for the Salvation of Men.—That the sufferings, 
humiliation, and death of Christ are vitally connected with the 
pardon of men’s sins is a truth so frequently stated in the Serip- 
tures that its mention seems almost superfluous. This was the 
burden of the message of Jesus and the apostolic ministry. It 
is the central thought of the sacred writings. This must be 
evident even to the superficial reader. No exhaustive citation 
of texts on this subject is possible in the limits of this work, 
but a few will serve as examples for our purpose. ‘‘The Son of 
Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to 
give his life a ransom for many’’ (Matt. 20:28). ‘‘And as 
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the 
Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him 
should not perish, but have eternal life’’ (John 3:14,15). ‘‘But 
God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet 
sinners, Christ died for us’’ (Rom. 5:8). ‘‘But we see Jesus, 
who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of 
death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of 
God should taste death for every man’’ (Heb. 2:9). ‘‘For if 


378 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer 
sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 
how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal 
Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your con- 
science from dead works to serve the living God?’’ (Heb. 9: 13, 
14). ‘‘So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many”’ 
(v. 28). ‘‘Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins 
in his own blood’’ (Rev. 1:5). 

In view of the vast multitude of clear declarations of the 
Seriptures such as the foregoing, all who pretend to believe 
them necessarily admit there is a connection between Christ’s 
death and our salvation. But some limit that connection to 
such a degree as to misrepresent the true teaching of divine 
Revelation. The Arians, the Socinians, and the modern religious 
liberals are among those who hold unsatisfactory theories of 
how the death of Christ saves. Socinianism gives much promi- 
nence to the point that Christ is a teacher, and that as such he 
saves his people by instructing them concerning the will of 
God so they may escape a life of sin and its consequence, and 
be caused to live a life of holiness. But it is affirmed that he 
must be divinely shown to be a teacher from God and that his 
resurrection from the dead was chosen as the means of authen- 
tication. Therefore, it is reasoned, his death was an indispens- 
able antecedent to his resurrection and in this sense he saves 
men through his death. 

Also it is said his death is a means of our salvation in that 
by dying as a martyr in defense of his teaching he gave the 
strongest testimony possible to the veracity and his belief of 
that teaching. Again, Socinians say Jesus by his death gave a 
wonderful example of loyalty to truth. But they affirm the 
principal value of Jesus’ death was in its manifestation of his 
love for men which constrains them to love God in return, to 
forsake sin, and to live righteously. 

Doubtless Christ is a divinely sent teacher of whom the 
voice of God from heaven said, ‘‘Hear ye him,’’ and his death 
and resurrection do prove him to be such. Moreover, all else 
that Socinians affirm as to the value of his death as a witness, 
as an example of loyalty, and as constraining men to love God 
is true and Scriptural; but this is not the whole truth, nor are 
any of these the chief sense in which the death of Christ saves 


RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 379 


us. Some of the Scriptures cited state that we are saved by his 
blood. ‘‘He hath loved us and washed us from our sins in his 
own blood.’’ These texts state that in some more special sense 
than those described we are saved by the blood of Christ. A 
criminal under sentence of death needs more than teaching as 
to what is required by the law. Such might have been sufficient 
before he became a criminal. He needs more than evidence that 
the instruction given him is credible. He needs more than an 
example of faithfulness or a manifestation of loving interest. 
He is guilty and needs pardon. His only salvation is a remission 
of his penalty, and that can properly be remitted only when the 
righteousness of the law can be otherwise supported. Unless he 
is first pardoned all instruction is useless. The death of Christ 
is that ground on which God may properly order non-execution 
of penalty on the sinner. 

2. Christ Died in Our Stead.—The Scriptures represent Christ 
as having died as a substitute for us. His death was vicarious. 
Had he not died we must have died. ‘‘The Son of man came 
... to give his life a ransom for many’’ (Matt. 20:28). ‘‘ While 
we were yet sinners, Christ died for us’’ (Rom. 5:8). ‘*Who 
gave himself a ransom for all’’ (1 Tim. 2:6). Jesus was made 
a little lower than the angels ‘‘that he... should taste death 
for every man’’ (Heb. 2:9). ‘‘For Christ also hath once suf- 
fered for sins, the just for the unjust’’ (1 Pet. 3:18). 

It is sometimes said that these texts do not necessarily teach 
that the death of Christ was vicarious, but may mean merely 
that he died in our behalf and not in our stead, much as a sol- 
dier dies for the benefit of his countrymen but not in the place 
of them. Such is the theory of Socinians, as has been already 
shown. They deny that Christ died as our substitute, as do also 
Arians. Arianism claims Christ’s death has value for our sal- 
vation principally in making him influential with God as inter- 
cessor for us. It holds that because of Christ’s sacrifice in be- 
coming incarnate, foregoing divine glory, and suffering and 
dying because of his love for men, God was well pleased with 
him and consequently grants his petitions for pardon of man’s 
sins as he would not otherwise do. Whatever element of truth 
this theory may contain, it evidently is defective in omitting a 
very important element. 

In opposition to the idea of Christ’s death being vicarious 


380 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


it is said the word ‘‘for’’ in the texts before quoted, including 
the Greek prepositions from which it is translated, avtt (ant) 
in the first text and tméo (huper) in the others, mean only 
on behalf of, on account of, or for the benefit of us. That these 
terms are in some instances so used is readily admitted, as in 
the statement ‘‘ Christ died for our sins.’’ Evidently he did not 
die instead of our sins. But while this is true it is also true 
that ‘‘for’’ and the equivalent Greek terms mentioned may also 
mean instead of. And with proof that in some of the fore- 
going texts these terms must be so understood we have good 
eround for always so understanding them when used of the death 
of Christ in relation to us. For proof that the Greek preposi- 
tions Gvtt (anti) and taxéo (huper) sometimes express the 
idea of instead, the highest lexicographical authorities might be 
given, but more direct proof is possible. That the words ‘‘ Christ 
died for us’’ mean in our stead is evident from the context, 
which says, ‘‘For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet 
peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.’’ 
But who could believe one would sacrifice his life for any mere 
benefit to a good man? Doubtless one would die for a good man 
only for the purpose of redeeming the good man’s life, which 
otherwise must be lost. 

When Caiaphas said, ‘‘It is expedient for us, that one man 
should die [tmée, huper] for the people, and that the whole 
nation perish not’’ (John 11:50), he certainly meant that either 
Christ or the nation must perish and that Christ should die in 
its stead. Inspiration tells us that this was a prophecy that 
Christ should die for, instead of, the Jewish people. The word 
avtt (antt) translated ‘‘for’’ in Matt. 20:28 is used in the sense 
of substitution. ‘‘If he ask a fish, will he [dvti, anti] for 
a fish,’’ instead of a fish, ‘‘give him a serpent?’’ (Luke 11:11). 
Christ died for our sins, ‘‘the just for the unjust,’’ in the sense 
that if he had not died for our sins we must have died. ‘‘The 
wages of sin is death.’’ Man had sinned and was under sentence 
of death. But Christ died in his place so that in some sense it 
may properly be said his death was a substitute for that of man. 

But it is objected by some that whether the death of Christ 
be regarded as a substituted penalty or a substitute for a penalty 
it is unjust and not admissible that the innocent should suffer 
vicariously for the guilty. Doubtless this is true if that suffer- 


RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 381 


ing by the substitute were compulsory. Such would certainly 
be unjust. But if he voluntarily suffers for the guilty and the 
guilty is pardoned only on repentance and after giving evidence 
that the crime will not again be committed, then no valid evidence 
can be made against such vicarious suffering. If Christ be 
pleased to suffer for men as a means of supporting the divine 
holiness and law while God pardons the sinner after the interests 
of these have been properly protected, no reason is evident why 
he may not so suffer. 

3. Christ Died to Propitiate God.—To propitiate is to appease, 
or to turn away the wrath of an offended person. It implies 
two parties at variance—one the offender and the other the 
offended. A propitiation is that which makes the aggrieved 
party favorable to the offender. It is a reconciliation, an atone- 
ment, or an expiation. These words are synonymous in mean- 
ing. In the present consideration man is the offender, God is 
the offended one, and the blood of Christ is the propitiation. 
All texts that teach the death of Christ is for expiation, atone- 
ment, or reconciliation, teach that it is propitiatory. 

This truth is declared by many texts. ‘‘Whom God hath 
set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood’’ (Rom. 
3:25). “‘He is the propitiation for our sins’’ (1 John 2:2). 
‘God ... sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins’’ (1 
John 4:10). ‘‘We also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus 
Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation’’ 
(Rom. 5:11, A. S. V.). ‘‘ All things are of God, who hath 
reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ’’ (2 Cor. 5:18). The 
Greek words which are translated ‘‘propitiation’’ and synony- 
mous terms are used, not only by the Septuagint and the New 
Testament, but by classical Greek writers to express the action 
of a person who turns aside the wrath of a deity. God is the one 
propitiated, not men. 

But all those who deny an objective in the atonement, in- 
eluding all Socinians, make the reconciliation to refer wholly to 
man. They affirm that inasmuch as God is always in the right, 
it is not conceivable that anything that might be done can 
change him. Therefore, it is said, man must be the one who is 
reconciled to God by his being influenced to love and obey God. 
Such a view is assumed to have support in the words of Paul 
already quoted, ‘‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto 


382 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


himself’’ (2 Cor. 5:19). It is held that Jesus’ only work in 
the world was that of persuading men to piety, and in no sense 
to propitiate God. But the context is a refutation of this Socin- 
ian theory, for there it is clearly implied that Christ’s work of 
reconciliation was accomplished, and so also is the committing 
of the word of reconciliation to the apostles accomplished. After 
all this the Apostle exhorts men to be reconciled to God. In 
other words, they are exhorted to avail themselves of that 
reconciliation that Christ has effected with God. According to 
the Bible, this they are to do by faith in Christ, whom God 
‘hath made to be sin [a sin-offering] for us, who knew no sin; 
that we might be the righteousness of God in him’ (v. 21). 
Without such a sin-offering God must impute the sins of men 
unto them. By it he might properly forgive their sins, because 
by it the bar to pardon was removed. 

That the expression ‘‘be ye reconciled to God’’ implies in 
Bible usage the idea of making satisfaction to the offended party 
or accepting a satisfaction so made, is evident from other texts. 
Of David it is said, ‘‘Wherewith should he reconcile himself 
unto his master? should it not be with the heads of these men?’’ 
(1 Sam. 29:4). Here Saul was displeased with David and 
therefore was the one to be propitiated or reconciled to David. 
But David is said to reconcile himself to Saul. ‘‘If thou bring 
thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother 
hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, 
and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come 
and offer thy gift’? (Matt. 5:23, 24). Here the offerer is the 
offender and his brother is the offended one and needs to be 
propitiated or reconciled. But the offender is exhorted to be 
reconciled to the offended. In both of these texts and especially 
in the latter we have an exhortation exactly parallel with that 
in 2 Cor. 5:19. Therefore Paul’s statement must be under- 
stood as meaning what that of Jesus certainly means. It must 
mean that God is the one propitiated or reconciled and we are 
to avail ourselves of his favor. 

Another Socinian objection to the doctrine that the death 
of Christ is to propitiate God is that God is not an implacable 
and vengeful being who will be disposed to show mercy only 
when displeasure is satisfied by the death and sufferings of his 
own Son. The objector in describing the orthodox view as 


RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 383 


representing God as passionately revengeful greatly misrepre- 
sents that view. Those who teach that Christ reconciles God to 
men do not so think of God, but regard him as a God of love. 
Because of his love he gave his Son to die for men’s salvation. 
We agree with Socinians that God is love, but we also believe 
and the Scriptures teach that he has other attributes—holiness 
and justice, and divine holiness must be regarded. God is moral 
ruler and it is important that his law be protected if the sinner 
is to be pardoned. The ‘‘wrath of God’’ abides on the sinner 
in the sense that God is displeased with his sinning and as moral 
ruler has the responsibility of inflicting the penalty of his law 
upon violators of it. In order to bring about the non-execution 
of the just penalty of the law on the sinner, proper satisfaction 
must be made in vindication of the divine law and _ holiness. 
This is the sense in which the death of Christ propitiates God. 

4, Christ Died to Redeem Man.—The death of Christ is often 
represented in the Scriptures as a redemption, and men are said 
to be redeemed through his death. Other words of similar im- 
port are used to express the same idea, such as ransomed, pur- 
chased, and bought. ‘‘Feed the church of God, which he hath 
purchased with his own blood’’ (Acts 20:28). ‘‘Being justi- 
fied freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ 
Jesus’’ (Rom. 3: 24). ‘‘Ye are not your own. For ye are bought 
with a price’’ (1 Cor. 6:19, 20). ‘‘In whom we have redemption 
through his blood’? (Eph. 1:7). ‘‘Ye are not redeemed with 
corruptible things, as silver and gold, ... but with the precious 
blood of Christ’’ (1 Pet. 1:18, 19). ‘‘Christ Jesus ... gave 
himself a ransom for all’’ (1 Tim. 2:5, 6). 

Those who deny a Godward aspect of the atonement affirm 
that redemption implies only deliverance. They regard only 
the effect, and reject the cause of it. The very words in the 
foregoing passages, redeem, ransom, purchase, and bought, 
which well express the idea of the Greek text, imply more than 
mere deliverance. They imply a deliverance as from slavery, 
exile, or penalty by means of a buying back to a former condi- 
tion by the payment of a price. That price which is paid is 
represented in the Greek as a Avtoov (lutron), a ransom or 
redemption. The Scriptures represent salvation through Christ 
as more than a restoration to a former condition. It is restora- 


384 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


tion by a buying back, a redemption, and the price paid is the 
precious blood of Christ. 

Various objections have been made to the idea of Christ’s 
death being a redemption in the sense here described. Certain 
of the early Church Fathers assumed the sufferings of Christ 
were a ransom paid to Satan. But they got their idea from 
their own reasoning and in no sense from the Scriptures. Be- 
cause the theory has no ground in Revelation it was subsequently 
rejected by the church generally. Yet the opponents have not 
failed to make that rejected theory an occasion for jJests and 
disparagement of the true doctrine. But error by some in ex- 
plaining the doctrine is not a disproof of the doctrine itself. 

Opposers especially object that because the Scripture teaches 
that salvation is by grace and is given freely of God, therefore 
it can not also be a result of purchase by the payment of a 
price. This argument would have weight if a commercial trans- 
action were the subject under consideration. In such a ease the 
payment of a debt satisfies all claims and there remains no room 
for the exercise of grace. But the sinner is guilty and is under 
sentence of death. To omit the infliction of that penalty on the 
sinner without atonement would violate the divine holiness and 
result in the downfall of God’s government. Christ graciously 
dies in the sinner’s stead, so that in some sense the law and 
character of God are vindicated while he freely pardons the 
sinner. Yet the death of Christ was not a substitute for man’s 
suffering of penalty in such a sense that it becomes a matter of 
justice with God to remit the penalty for sin of all those for 
whom he died, as Calvinism has held. The paying of the ran- 
som of the sinner is not of such a nature that the exercise of 
free grace in the individual’s pardon is excluded. The Bible 
explicitly teaches that the death of Christ is redemptive and 
yet that sin is actually pardoned when the individual believes 
on Christ. 

The expressions redemption, purchase, and ransom, like 
propitiation, reconciliation, and atonement, when used of the 
death of Christ are to be understood as having a figurative sense. 
They are commercial and judicial terms, and have only a limited 
application to the great spiritual truths of the atonement. Like 
all figures, parables, and symbols, it is possible to press them too 
far in various details to the misrepresentation of the truth they 


RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 385 


are intended to teach. The different commercial terms such as 
redeem and purchase have been pressed too far by Calvinists in 
connection with the idea of a limited atonement. They have in- 
terpreted these terms to mean that Christ suffered the exact 
amount that all the elect deserved to suffer for their sins, and 
that because he has thus purchased their salvation it would be 
a matter of injustice on the part of God if he did not certainly 
save all those for whom Christ died. 

5. Christ Died to Declare God’s Righteousness.—This is most pos- 
itively stated in the Scriptures. ‘‘Being justified freely by his 
grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus: whom 
God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his 
blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that 
are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at 
this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifi- 
er of him which believeth in Jesus’’ (Rom. 3: 24-26). This plain 
statement by inspiration as to the purpose of Christ’s death cer- 
tainly leaves no room for rejection of a Godward element in the 
atonement. The suffering of Christ proclaims that God 1s right- 
eous or holy and in doing so meets the demands of justice in such 
a sense that God is shown just while he justifies the ungodly. 

But how does the death of Jesus declare the divine right- 
eousness? Answers to this question differ among those who 
accept the objective element of the atonement as set forth in 
the foregoing quotation from Paul. One class affirms that while 
we are certain the death of Christ does declare the righteousness 
of God because it is so stated by Revelation, we can not know 
how it declares it because this is not revealed. Doubtless the 
variety of opinions set forth on this point is reason for modesty 
in making assertions. Yet it is legitimate to inquire what is 
meant by the passage under consideration. Even if complete 
knowledge is not attainable here it is reasonable to believe a 
degree of understanding is possible. Differences in the inter- 
pretation of this statement of the Scriptures are usually the 
result of some claiming to find more in it than others believe 
it teaches. 

The theory that the death of Christ has no necessary con- 
nection with the forgiveness of sins, but is a purely arbitrary 
arrangement by which God is pleased to represent himself as 
being righteous, is objectionable. ‘‘It behooved Christ to suffer.’’ 


386 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


In other words, it was necessary that he should suffer. It was 
not necessary as opposed to contingency, or he was not compelled 
to suffer, but it was necessary to something else—the pardon of 
sinners. ‘‘There is none other name under heaven given among 
men, whereby we must be saved’’ (Acts 4:12). ‘‘No man 
cometh unto the Father, but by me’’ (John 14:6). In its essen- 
tial nature the death of Christ declares God’s righteousness. 

How, then, is the death of Christ in our stead a propitiation, 
a redemption, and a declaration of the divine holiness? These 
questions are in a great measure identical. A partial answer 
has been given more than once in the foregoing pages. The 
death of Christ removes the bar to pardon and makes possible 
the non-execution of penalty on the sinner. It does not eliminate 
the need of pardon. It does not bring it to pass that the sinner 
has not committed his past sins. It does not change the fact that 
he was responsible for his sinful acts. It does not change the 
fact of his guilt and desert of punishment. It does not change 
the fact that he may be justly punished or that the penalty may 
be justly inflicted upon him. 

The death of Christ does make possible to God an order 
of non-execution of penalty on the sinner without any sacrifice 
of his personal holiness and without any lowering of the dignity 
of his holy law. It accomplishes the same result in these respects 
as would the infliction of the penalty on the sinner who is par- 
doned. It is declarative in that it is exponential of the impor- 
tant truth that God is a holy being and a righteous ruler. It 
satisfies the divine Justice, both essential and administrative, in 
that it declares them by attaining their ends, which are the glory 
of God and the well-being of men. 

But what would be the consequences if God should order 
non-execution of penalty on the sinner without the death of 
Christ or a proper atonement? Evidently the natural and 
inevitable result on the part of the subjects of God’s govern- 
ment to the extent they became aware of the failure to execute 
penalty would be to cease to respect that government. The moral 
Ruler himself would be despised, his law would cease to be 
obeyed, the threats of penalty would become meaningless, and 
government would give place to anarchy. But this is not the 
only bar to pardon. If the penalty on the sinner were remitted 
without atonement, God would cease to appear as a holy being. 


RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 387 


The moral law is holy because its giver is holy. God’s law is 
determined by his own inner character, Then atonement is a 
vindication, not only of God’s righteous law, but also of his 
personal holiness. Since Christ has at infinite cost made an 
atonement by suffering in man’s stead as a declaration of the 
righteousness of God, if man repents, thus giving assurance of 
future good conduct, and trusts in the mercy of God through 
the atonement Christ has made, there is no obstacle to the order 
by God of non-execution of penalty upon him. No evil will 
result, but great good will follow in the well-being of the person 
pardoned and in the glory of God. While God freely justifies 
the ungodly, the death of Christ testifies that sin can not be 
pardoned unless the ends of penalty are met. 


IV. Reconciliation in the Old Testament Sacrifices 

Devout readers of the Scriptures have commonly believed 
the Bible teaches that certain institutions and acts of the Old 
Testament are typical of spiritual truths of the gospel. If proof 
can be given that these are types—not mere ‘‘expressions of 
natural religion,’’ as is affirmed by skeptics, but divinely given 
types—then we may discover in a degree the nature of the anti- 
typical truth by a study of the type. With evidence that the 
atonement for sin by the animal sacrifices of true religion in pre- 
Christian times was typical of the atonement of Christ, we may 
legitimately interpret his atonement in the light of those typical 
offerings. The general ideas of the typical must apply to the 
true atonement. 

1. Animal Sacrifices Typify Christ—A type is an action or in- 
stitution divinely prepared and appointed to represent a reli- 
gious truth and to foreshow, by resemblance, those facts in the 
work of Christ on which the truth symbolized rests. A type is 
based on the fact of resemblance, but differs from a mere simile 
in that this analogy is not a result of chance, but is so because 
divinely preordained to typify. Because of the predictive ele- 
ment in them, types may be called prophetic similitudes or 
acted prophecies as distinguished from those which are spoken. 
As surely as spoken prophecies furnish ground for doctrinal 
formulation so do these acted prophecies. 

The New Testament writers clearly and repeatedly represent 
the Mosaic institutions as being typical. ‘‘Let no man therefore 


388 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, 
or of the new moon, or of the sabbath-days: Which are a shadow 
of things to come; but the body is of Christ’’ (Col. 2:16, 17). 
The Levitical priests are said to ‘‘serve unto the example and 
shadow of heavenly things’’ ( Heb. 8:5). The Mosaic taber- 
nacle was ‘‘a figure’’ (Heb. 9:9), “‘patterns of things in the 
heavens,’’ and ‘‘figures of the true’’ (Heb. 9:23, 24). These 
and other texts not only show that the different institutions 
and rites of the law were types, shadows—faint sketches, or 
adumbrations—but also that Christ and his redemptive work are 
the antitype or substance by which the shadows were cast. 

The offerings themselves are specifically described as being 
types of Christ, the true offering for sin. ‘‘For the law having 
a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the 
things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by 
year continually make the comers thereunto perfect’’ (Heb. 10: 
1). Here the implication is clear that the reason those animal 
sacrifices were not efficacious in the permanent removal of guilt 
was because they were but shadows of a true offering for sin. 
In the fifth, tenth, fourteenth, and nineteenth verses of this 
chapter the offering of the body of Christ and his blood are 
shown to be the true offering foreshadowed by those ancient 
animal sacrifices. Christ was ‘‘the Lamb of God, which taketh 
away the sin of the world’’ (John 1:29). Peter said we are 
redeemed ‘‘with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb 
without blemish and without spot’’ (1 Pet. 1:19). With this 
positive proof that the Old Testament sacrifices were divinely 
given types of the death of Christ, we may properly interpret 
the latter in the light of the former, while the New Testament 
teaching about the atonement serves as a guide to the interpret- 
ing of the Old Testament animal sacrifices. 

2. Old Testament Sacrifices were Expiatory.—powayye you st 3] 
that the animals which were sacrificed on God’s altars suffered 
as much as the guilty offerer should have suffered, but in some 
sense they were for the expiation of sin. In Lev. 17:11 the eat- 
ing of blood is forbidden and the reason given why it must not 
- be eaten. ‘‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have 
given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your 
souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul 
[by reason of the life—A. S. V.].’’ The last clause of this 


RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 389 


verse implies that the blood makes atonement because of the life 
which is in it, this being a restatement of the first clause of the 
verse, which says ‘‘the life of the flesh is in the blood.’’ Modern 
science has discovered what was stated by Moses, that the blood 
is the physical seat of life. The life of the animal resides in 
the blood. Therefore when it was sprinkled upon God’s altars 
for expiation, it was the offering of a life to God instead of the 
life of the sinner which had been forfeited by sin, which is in 
full agreement with the New Testament representation that the 
death of Christ is propitiatory and substitutional. For this rea- 
son blood is represented as being necessary to expiation of sin. 
This great truth was enforced in the offerings of Cain and Abel. 
Abel’s was accepted because a bloody offering. Cain’s was re- 
jected because it was a vegetable offering without blood. The 
writer to the Hebrews states that it was rejected because it was 
not offered in faith. But Cain evidently had faith in the Divine 
existence and providence, else he would have brought no offer- 
ing. But he did not have faith in the divine requirement of 
vicarious atonement by a life offered as a substitute for his 
own. His was a bloodless religion and was rejected of God, as 
must be that of men today who reject the expiatory or God- 
ward element in the death of Christ. 

That those animal sacrifices were vicarious is clear. One 
essential to every animal sacrifice under the Levitical system 
was that before he killed the sacrifice the offerer must lay or 
lean his hand upon it. By that solemn act he identified himself 
with it in such a sense that it might become his substitute and 
die in his stead. The vicarious nature of animal offerings is no- 
where more clearly portrayed than in the offering of the first 
Passover. The destroying angel is represented as passing 
through the land at midnight to destroy the first-born in every 
home. But on the condition that in each Israelitish home a lamb 
would be sacrificed and its blood sprinkled upon the posts and 
lintels of the doors the angel would pass over those homes and 
the first-born would be spared. This is plainly an instance of 
vicarious suffering. The lamb dies that the first-born might not 
die. An inspired New Testament writer has so explained the 
sacrifice of Christ. ‘‘Christ our passover is sacrificed for us’’ 
(1 Cor. 5:7). Further comment is unnecessary to prove that 
the sacrifice of the Passover is typical of the death of Christ 


390 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


and that the vicarious element in the former is confirmatory of 
the New Testament teaching that the death of Christ is in our 
stead. 

The solemn rites connected with the sin-offering on the great 
Day of Atonement very definitely prove the death of Christ is 
for the removal of sin. The very name of this important sacred 
season when Israel were to afflict their souls shows that atone- 
ment was the leading idea in its observance. Two goats were 
brought as a sin-offering for the whole congregation. One of 
them was killed and its blood sprinkled before the Lord in ex- 
piation of the sins of the people. On the other goat, the scape- 
goat, the high priest laid both his hands and confessed over it 
all the sins of the people of Israel, after which it was sent away 
to an uninhabited region. By this double symbol sin is repre- 
sented as being both expiated by the death of a substitute and 
also borne away. In the tenth chapter of Hebrews this annual 
national atonement is said to typify the atonement of Christ. 
Therefore as the first goat died for the expiation of the sins of 
Israel, so Christ died to make satisfaction for our sins; and 
as the second goat is represented as having the sins of the peo- 
ple laid upon it, so in some sense our sins are laid upon Christ, 
who bears them away. 

Again, the unclean are represented as being made clean by 
virtue of sin-offerings. Those who had incurred ceremonial 
defilement were barred from the house of God on pain of death. 
Not until a sin-sacrifice was offered for them were they regarded 
as clean (Lev. 15:31). Likewise those morally defiled can come 
into the Divine presence and escape death, the penalty for sin, 
only through the death of Christ, by which alone they can be 
made clean. 


V. Elements in the Biblical Doctrine of Reconciliation 


The foregoing consideration of the teaching of the Serip- 
tures concerning the atonement of Christ leads to the conelu- 
sion that the atonement is connected with the salvation of men 
and that it is necessary to their being saved. Even at the risk 
of some repetition, as a summary of what has been said and to 
give more definite form to the doctrine, it is now important to 
direct attention to the several elements of the doctrine as found 
in the Scriptures. These elements may be divided into (1) the 


RECONCILIATION THROUGH CHRIST 391 


subjective or manward aspects, and (2) the objective or God- 
ward aspects. 

1. Subjective Elements.—Some theories of the atonement af- 
firm that no bar to pardon exists as far as God is concerned 
and that the only reason why the death of Christ is necessary 
to man’s salvation is in order to persuade him to forsake evil 
and accept God’s pardon. Consequently these theories deny 
any Godward element in the atonement of Christ. Such theories 
are doubtless inadequate in the light of the Scriptures. Yet they 
do contain certain elements of truth that must be included in 
any true view of the reconciliation accomplished by Christ. We 
very willingly allow all of these subjective elements. 

Foremost of these is the truth that the death of Christ is a 
marvelous manifestation of divine love which is calculated to 
produce repentance and love for God in return. This exhibition 
of the love of God in Christ is often pointed to by the Biblical 
writers aS an important purpose of his death. Doubtless also 
it is of great value as an example to all the followers of Christ 
of moral heroism in the cause of right. Many have counted 
themselves happy to fill up the measure of the sufferings of 
Christ and unfiinchingly to face persecution and death because 
of the inspiration of that example. Again, the death of Christ 
is of great value in man’s salvation as an antecedent to his 
resurrection from the dead, which is often represented as an 
evidence that he was all he claimed to be. This is the ‘‘sign 
of the prophet Jonah’’ which Jesus said would be given, and 
it is the evidence of his Messiahship to which Paul appealed in 
his remarkable sermon on Mars’ Hill. A fourth reason for the 
death of Christ for man’s salvation is its proclamation of his 
sincerity as a teacher or his full belief of his own teaching. It 
is not conceivable that he would voluntarily die for what he 
knew to be false; therefore he believed what he taught. In 
addition to these manward elements of the atonement which 
have characterized the Socinian doctrine may be added the 
Bushnellian idea that an important value of Christ’s work lies 
in its authentic manifestation of God, through the most effective 
means of manifestation—vicarious suffering. Doubtless this is 
adapted to draw out the sinner’s love for God and bring to him 
most vividly the great truth that God is good and ought to have 
his allegiance and that he should be good also as is God. These 


392 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


are indeed Scriptural truths and properly elements of the true 
doctrine of the atonement, but they do not include all the ele- 
ments, nor even the most important elements of the doctrine. 

2. Objective Elements.—Different objective elements in the 
atonement have been shown by the foregoing review of the 
Seripture statements on the subject. While we should allow 
all these, we do well to guard the doctrine from erroneous ideas 
that have often been held as objective elements. 

Christ’s death is in our stead or substitutional, so we need 
not die as a penalty for sin. His death is propitiatory, or a 
reconciliation, to propitiate God. This does not imply that the 
love of the Son is set over against the justice of the Father. The 
Father himself ‘‘so loved the world’’ that he gave his Son for 
their salvation. Both Father and Son possess equally all the 
divine attributes, including both justice and love. Christ’s 
death is propitiatory in that it removes the bar to pardon. His 
death is redemptive, or is a ransom or price paid to buy back 
to a former condition. This does not mean that it is a price 
paid to Satan, but is a satisfaction to the justice of God. Here 
the commercial idea is not to be pressed so far as to imply that 
Christ suffered the exact amount which all the elect should have 
suffered throughout eternity. His humiliation and death are an 
infinite price because of the infinite dignity of the offering. His 
death is also declarative in the sense that it proclaims the right- 
eousness of God and the holiness of his law. In so doing the 
death of Christ witnesses to God’s displeasure of sin and makes 
pardon possible. In the light of the Scriptures these must be 
regarded as Godward elements of the atonement. 

The atonement, then, is for man’s salvation, is necessary to 
his salvation, and is universal in its extent in that it makes 
possible the salvation of all men. 


CuHapTer III 
APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 


With the proof of the truth of atonement through Christ for 
man’s redemption, the questions next to claim our attention are: 
What benefits are ours through the death of Christ? Are these 
benefits available to all men or for a selected number? Are they 
bestowed unconditionally upon those for whom they are in- 
tended or is their application to the individual dependent upon 
his voluntarily appropriating them by meeting requisite condi- 
tions? If salvation is conditional what are those conditions? 
All of these are important questions. 


I. Unconditional Benefits of the Atonement 


Salvation from the penalty of sin is commonly thought of as 
the chief purpose of the atonement, which is doubtless true, but 
several other benefits also are derived from it. Some of these 
are conditional on man’s part and some are in their very nature 
unconditional. 

1. Individual Existence.—The threatened penalty for sin of 
the first pair was death. This included spiritual death. The 
apostle Paul states that ‘‘sin revived, and I died’’ (Rom. 7:9). 
Death as a consequence of sin is frequently represented in the 
Sacred Writings as a present state. But the penalty for that 
first sin also included physical death. This is certain from the 
necessity of barring Adam and Eve from the tree of life when 
they had sinned, lest they eat of it and live forever. But if the 
full penalty for sin in respect to physical death had been im- 
mediately executed when the first sin was committed, the race 
would have been cut off at its beginning, and none of the de- 
scendants of the first pair would have ever existed. It is incon- 
ceivable, considering what human nature is, that the race could 
have been propagated from Adam and Eve after their spirits 
became disembodied. 

The only ground for delay in the execution of physical death 
is the atonement of Christ. Only because the seed of the woman 
was to bruise the head of the serpent and make salvation pos- 
sible, God could consistently spare Adam to repentance, and 
permit the propagation of a race that could likewise be saved. 


Divine goodness is reconcilable with the permission of the exist- 
393 


394 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ence of the race only on the ground that a way would be made 
for their redemption from that morally helpless condition con- 
sequent on Adam’s sin. The question may be asked at this 
point, Would it not have been more consistent with divine good- 
ness had the existence of the race been cut off with the first sin 
than that millions of moral beings should have been exposed to 
the possibility of endless punishment? No special problem rela- 
tive to the goodness of God exists at this point. If the redemp- 
tion provided by Christ does not vindicate God in the continu- 
ance of a race of moral beings after Adam’s sin, then there is 
no vindication of God’s original creation of such beings. The 
question raised here is identical with the general problem of 
theodicy already considered. Great goodness is manifested by 
God in giving existence to free beings. Existence and freedom 
may be wrongly used and so become great evils, as do many 
other blessings, but in themselves they are benefits of inestimable 
value. 

Every blessing that comes to man—every physical pleasure, 
the joy that comes through knowledge, the happiness of love and 
hope, and of the domestic relations, the capacity for thought, by 
which skeptics endeavor to deny the work of Christ—is due to 
existence itself, and existence is an unconditional benefit of the 
atonement. 

2. Possibility of Universal Salvation—The death of Christ did 
not make the salvation of all men actual, but it so declared 
the righteousness of God that God might consistently offer 
salvation on the ground of that atonement without any reflec- 
tion on his holiness as a divine person or as moral ruler. Sal- 
vation is made possible through the atonement. Because the 
possibility of the salvation of men is secured regardless of 
the choice of themselves, therefore it is an unconditional bene- 
fit of the atonement. Also the possibility of salvation is pro- 
eured by the death of Christ for all men. In this sense espe- 
cially he is the ‘‘Savior of all men.’’ Christ by the grace of 
God tasted death ‘‘for every man’’ (Heb. 2:9). But the uni- 
versality of the reconciliation of Christ is deferred for fuller 
diseussion in its appropriate place. 

3. Salvation for Those Dying in Infancy.—There was a_ time 
when the unscriptural assumption was prevalent that infants 
who died without baptism were lost. Evangelical Christians of 


APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 395 


the present are almost unanimous in repudiating that theory. 
Though the Bible does not explicitly state that infants who die 
go to heaven, the implication is clear. In the light of the re- 
vealed love and justice of God, it is inconceivable that God 
should allow them to be lost. Also Jesus said, ‘‘Suffer little 
children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is 
the kingdom of heaven’’ (Matt. 19:14). 

Infants have no guilt and are not punishable. They are not 
morally responsible and therefore do not deserve penalty for 
their own acts. Neither does any guilt attach to them because 
of Adam’s sin, in which they had no part, nor does their in- 
herited depravity merit penalty. The salvation of infants 
through Christ’s atonement, then, can not refer to their being 
saved from punishment. Yet they are depraved naturally, and 
in its very nature that perversion of moral nature constitutes 
an obstacle to full blessedness in this world or in heaven. More- 
over, because only the pure in heart can see God, and morally 
depraved beings are unfit to associate with holy angels and re- 
deemed saints in heaven, it follows that those dying in infancy 
must be sanctified from that depravity of their natures uncon- 
ditionally through the atonement of Christ. 

Aside from native depravity, the infant in no way differs 
from newly ereated beings. He has no moral desert. He de- 
serves no punishment nor merits reward. In this he differs from 
those who have passed a period of probation. Therefore the 
title of infants to heaven and their blessedness there must be 
unconditional through the merits of Christ and his atonement. 
But here the difficulty is met that led to the complaints of certain 
of the servants in the parable of the Vineyard—is it just that 
those who have borne the burden and stress of probationary 
testing should be rewarded no more than those saved without 
effort? Probably at least a partial solution of the difficulty is 
found in the distinction between salvation and reward. All are 
saved by grace, but in addition it may be assumed is reward 
which is in proportion to one’s faithfulness. ‘‘ Our light affliction, 
which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceed- 
ing, and eternal weight of glory’’ (2 Cor. 4:17). The uncondi- 
tional salvation of infants through the atonement of Christ con- 
sists, then, in the sanctification of their natures from native 


396 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


depravity, and the procuring for them a title to heaven and 
blessedness therein. 

4. Power Requisite for Probation—As a result of natural de- 
pravity unregenerate men are unable of themselves continually 
to do good or to choose good for its own sake. Jesus said, ‘*No 
man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me 
draw him’’ (John 6:44). Only by the revelation of the Spirit 
of God can spiritual truth be truly known (Matt. 16:17). 
Christ ‘‘was the true Light, which lighteth every man that com- 
eth into the world’’ (John 1:9). ‘‘The grace of God which 
bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men’’ (Titus 2:11). 
These texts leave no place for the theory of Semi-Pelagianism 
that man has natural power to forsake sin and turn to God with- 
out divine aid. In the light of the fact that the divine drawing 
is necessary to the repentance of a sinner, it follows that the con- 
ditions for a fair probation require that there be afforded to all 
men unconditionally gracious help in order to repentance. Such 
eracious influence is procured and freely given to all uncon- 
ditionally through the atonement of Christ. This gracious help 
is the chief requisite to a fair probation for depraved man. 

In objection to the idea that man in this life is under condi- 
tions suitable to probation, it is sometimes pointed out that pro- 
bationary privileges are unequally distributed. Some persons 
are more depraved naturally, have less opportunity for knowl- 
edge of the will of God, and enjoy less of religious influence 
than do others. Evidently this is all true. But it is also true 
that ‘‘unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much 
required’’; and he to whom less is given, of him God will require 
less. The inequality in opportunity will be equalized in corre- 
sponding retribution. Obligation is equal to, but never in excess 
of one’s ability. Therefore if one may be lost it is certain that 
he may be saved. If he has power to sin he necessarily has 
power, either naturally or by grace, to refrain from sinning. 
This follows from the nature of sin. 

_ That all men have capacity and opportunity for a fair proba- 
tion in the present life is questioned especially in the case of the 
heathen. Though the Scriptures do not state specifically that 
the heathen have conditions suitable to a fair probation, yet it 
is properly inferred from what the Bible says that they have 
such conditions. In the light of a principle already stated, if 


APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 397 


the heathen have no knowledge of right nor sense of moral duty 
they have no responsibility and will be saved on the same ground 
as are infants or idiots. 

But it is evident that all men may have some knowledge of 
God through his works in nature. Such evidence is continually 
before them. ‘‘Because that which may be known of God is 
manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the 
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly 
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his 
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse’’ 
(Rom. 1:19, 20). By intuition and rational processes all may 
know God is, and to the extent he is known by men they are 
obligated to worship and do what they believe would please 
him. The apostle Paul wrote of the heathen of his day that 
though they did not have the written revelation of God’s will, 
yet they ‘‘do by nature the things contained in the law, these, 
having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which show the 
work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also 
bearing witness, and their thoughts in the meanwhile accusing 
or else excusing one another’’ (Rom. 2:14, 15). All men are 
obligated to conform to the requirements of their conscience, 
and only by so doing can they be saved. 

If it be objected that the heathen can not live according to 
their conscience without regeneration and without the divine 
drawing can not obtain regeneration, we reply that there is 
reason for believing the gracious help of the Holy Spirit is 
offered to all men, even to those without the written revelation 
of God. God reveals himself directly even to heathen. Prob- 
able examples of these are Abraham, Melchisedek, and Job. 
Who ean say that God does not today and has not in all ages 
revealed himself to all men in proportion to their willingness 
to serve him, that they might trust in his mercy for salvation ? 
It is certainly not necessary to one’s salvation that he have a 
historical knowledge of Christ and understand the atonement, 
for many in nominally Christian lands are converted without 
such knowledge. Though salvation is always through Christ, 
yet one need not know that it is so nor how it is so in order 
to his salvation. 

That divine help is given to all men that they might obtain 
salvation is properly inferred from the Scriptures and reason. 


398 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 
That retribution is to be according to light and ability is clearly 
taught in the Bible. Therefore the conditions for a fair proba- 
tion are afforded to all men in this life. If this is not so, then 
another probation period must be yet future, which idea is con- 
trary to the Scriptures. 


II. Conditional Benefits of the Atonement 


The benefits of the atonement hitherto considered are im- 
mediate in that they are conferred on the individual without 
the requirement of any action on his part in order to their re- 
ception. Attention is now directed to what may be properly 
designated as conditional benefits. These may be enjoyed only 
by one’s voluntarily appropriating them by the meeting of di- 
vinely specified requirements. The nature of this class of bene- 
fits is deferred for later discussion. Our present purpose is to 
show the truth of their conditionality. 

1. Salvation from Sin Conditional_—Salvation from sin in its 
broad aspect as here used includes, not only pardon, but also 
regeneration, entire sanctification, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, 
and power to live a holy life. All of these are obtainable only 
by one’s voluntarily meeting proper conditions. But proof of 
the conditionality of the initial work of salvation is especially 
important, for when this is established the conditionality of the 
other aspects of salvation mentioned are generally admitted, 
and particularly is this proof important because it is on this 
point that Calvinism has denied conditionality. Grounds for the 
possibility of the conditionality of salvation are: (1) the power 
of alternative choice, which has previously been shown to be an 
essential faculty of human nature; (2) the divine drawing of 
the sinner to Christ, which adequately supplies the natural lack 
of inclination to righteousness because of depravity; (3) divine- 
ly specified requirements clearly set forth in revelation as neces- 
sary to salvation. 

The Seriptures very definitely represent forgiveness of sin 
as conditional. The principal Scripture texts in support of this 
are those which connect the meeting of certain conditions with 
salvation from the penalty of sin. Repentance and faith are 
most commonly set forth as the necessary conditions for pardon. 
‘‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that 
believeth not shall be damned’’ (Mark 16:16). Nothing is 


APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 399 


clearer in this Great Commission than that the personal appro- 
priation of the salvation proclaimed by the apostles was alto- 
gether optional with the hearers. In their subsequent preaching 
the apostles preached salvation as available only to those who 
met proper conditions. ‘‘Then Peter said unto them, Repent, 
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ 
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the 
Holy Ghost’’ (Acts 2:38). Here repentance is made condi- 
tional to salvation. 

In answer to the Philippian Jailer’s inquiry, ‘‘ What must 
I do to be saved?’’ Paul said, ‘‘Believe on the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and thou shalt be saved’’ (Acts 16:31). In harmony 
with the words of Jesus in the Great Commission, the Apostle 
tc the Gentiles here teaches faith as the condition for pardon. 
No truth is given greater prominence in the Pauline writings 
than the important truth that salvation is conditional on men’s 
voluntary faith in Christ. This is the sense of the extended 
argument of the first nine chapters of the Roman espistle. Ex- 
amples of many specific statements in that argument are: ‘‘I 
am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of 
God unto salvation to every one that believeth’’ (Rom. 1:16). 
‘But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that just- 
ifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness’’ (Rom. 
4:5). Of equal value with the foregoing texts in proof of the 
conditionality of salvation is the great word of our Lord, ‘‘For 
God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life’? (John 3:16). 

Another class of texts which confirm and add strength to 
those already given as proof that personal application of salva- 
tion is dependent upon the meeting of requisite conditions by 
the sinner, are those which declare that those persons who do not 
meet such conditions will not be saved. ‘‘He that believeth not 
shall be damned’’ (Mark 16:16). ‘‘He that believeth on him 
is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned al- 
ready’’ (John 3:18). ‘‘He that believeth not the Son shall not 
see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him”’ (v. 36). 

Reason also gives support to the truth of the conditionality 
of salvation. We have already shown that man is free in secu- 
lar affairs. In morals he has power to choose to do righteously 


400 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


by the grace of God, or to choose to commit sin. If he were 
pardoned of past sins without repentance he would at once 
again become guilty and his pardon would avail nothing. There- 
fore on the ground of his moral freedom, repentance is a neces- 
sary condition of pardon. Also in view of the fact that the 
atonement makes pardon possible by the vindication of God’s 
holiness, it is a necessary condition for salvation that the sinner 
believe in that atonement if it is to Serve its intended purpose 
of declaring the righteousness of God while he justifies the 
guilty. 

Though justification and regeneration are distinct in nature, 
yet they are effected simultaneously, and the same act of faith 
is the condition for both. Entire sanctification and the Holy 
Spirit baptism, which also occur simultaneously, are through 
prayer (Luke 11:13) and faith (Acts 26:18). The exercise of 
the keeping power of God is ‘‘through faith’’ (1 Pet. 1:5). 

2. Special Providence Through Prayer—In addition to salva- 
tion from sin are various other gracious benefits that may be 
obtained through prayer and faith. There is a true voluntari- 
ness in prayer, even though faith is inspired directly by the 
Holy Spirit. These gracious benefits through prayer can not 
properly be classed with other special providences which God 
bestows on his children unconditionally, such as special protec- 
tion from unforeseen danger. 

Not the least of these special providences through prayer is 
divine physical healing. This, like salvation, is a conditional 
benefit of the atonement. That it is through the atonement is 
stated in the Scriptures. ‘‘Himself took our infirmities, and 
bare our sicknesses’’ (Matt. 8:17). This is quoted from the 
great atonement chapter of the Old Testament, Isaiah 53, and 
evidently means that through his atoning death he made possible 
our physical healing, All other benefits received in answer to 
prayer are through the atonement, by which alone God may 
consistently bless those deserving of penalty. These other bene- 
fits include material blessings—such as food, clothing, or shelter 
—divine guidance, and comfort when obtained through special 
prayer. 

3. Future Blessedness—lFuture blessedness of men is repre- 
sented throughout the Bible as conditioned upon their voluntary 
choice and action. The first step essential to future blessedness 


APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 401 


in heaven is pardon of sin and divine help to refrain from 
sinning thereafter, both of which are conditional. The second 
thing essential to blessedness in the future life is voluntary 
obedience to God’s Word throughout life after conversion. 

The great burden of Jesus’ teaching concerning his second 
coming in Matthew 24 was that men ‘‘be ready’’ for it by right- 
eous conduct. In the parables of the Ten Virgins and of the 
Talents the same general truth is emphasized. Also the deserip- 
tion of the last judgment, in Matthew 25, represents the blessed- 
ness of the righteous as the consequence of their past benevolent 
conduct. It is not to be supposed that Jesus taught salvation 
from guilt is obtainable by works, but when one has been justi- 
fied by grace he must live righteously to retain that justification 
and to gain blessedness in heaven. 


III. Universality of the Opportunity for Salvation 


No point concerning the application of salvation has been 
the subject of more controversy than that of the extent of the 
opportunity for salvation. This question necessarily includes 
another—the extent of the atonement. Did Christ die for all 
men or for only an elect company? If he died for all, is the 
cpportunity of salvation therefore alike to all? These questions 
are not identical. A certain modified form of Calvinism holds 
that Christ died for all men in that his sacrifice was infinite and 
sufficient for all, but that the opportunity to be actually saved 
is granted only to the elect. 

The question concerning who may be saved through Christ 
naturally leads to the Calvinistic controversy on the one hand 
and to the contention of Universalism on the other. Pure Cal- 
vinism affirms that the sufferings of Christ were sufficient only 
for the elect, and therefore that only the elect can possibly be 
saved. Opportunity of salvation is not afforded to the non-elect. 
A fuller review of the Calvinistie system is reserved for the fol- 
lowing division of this chapter. The common theory of uni- 
versalism begins with the commercial theory of the atonement 
usually held by Calvinists. Universalists assume, as do Calvin- 
ists, that all those for whom Christ died will be certainly and 
unconditionally saved. But instead of holding that Christ died 
only for the elect, they declare he died for all men; therefore 
all men will be saved. The proofs given in the preceding divi- 


402 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


sion of this chapter of the conditionality of salvation, if con- 
nected with the proofs of the universality of the atonement, con- 
stitute complete disproof of this Universalist theory. 

Our present purpose is not to show that all men will be 
saved, but that all men have the opportunity to be saved if they 
choose. Only from the Scriptures can we know what is the 
extent of the atonement, and for whom salvation is actually 
offered. 

1. Christ Died for All Men.—Not one text in all the Bible states 
directly that Christ did not die for all men or that he died only 
for an elect company. No advocate of a limited atonement pre- 
tends that there exists any such direct proof of his theory. But 
many texts specifically affirm, or clearly imply, that he did die 
for all men. Of Jesus it is said ‘‘that he by the grace of God 
should taste death for every man’’ (Heb. 2:9). No language 
could more definitely declare that Christ died for all men than 
does this text. ‘‘Every man’’ means every man. It can not be 
properly interpreted to mean anything else. The idea of a 
limited atonement, or that Christ did not die for all, is entirely 
excluded. 

It is further said of Christ, ‘‘Who gave himself a ransom 
for all’’ (1 Tim. 2:6). And again, ‘‘He died for all’’ (2 Cor. 
5:15). These are equally conclusive with the words of the 
writer to the Hebrews in support of a universal atonement. We 
readily allow that ‘‘all’’ and other universal terms may some- 
times be used in a limited sense in the Bible, as they are in com- 
mon speech, but certainly the word ‘‘all’’ is not so used in this 
latter text. The proof of the fullest universal sense of the term 
in the passage under consideration is in the immediate context. 
‘We thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead.’’ 
Here the universality of spiritual death is argued from the means 
employed for raising men to spiritual life. Therefore the evi- 
dent fact that spiritual death is universal, which even Calvinists 
admit, is proof that the death of Christ is for all men or equally 
universal as an atonement. 

Also it is said of Christ, ‘‘He is the propitiation for our 
sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole 
world’’ (1 John 2:2). This and other texts which represent 
Christ as dying for the entire world constitute another class of 
passages in support of the universality of the atonement. 


APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 403 


2. Salvation Is for All Men.—A certain modified form of Cal- 
vinism avoids the difficulties of a limited-atonement theory by 
affirming that Christ died for all men, but it denies that salva- 
tion is offered to any except the elect. In opposition to such a 
theory the Scriptures teach salvation is for all men. ‘‘ For there- 
fore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the 
living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that 
believe.’’ Unless God be the Savior of all men in a sense similar 
to that in which he especially saves those who believe, then the 
analogy the Apostle here draws is without foundation in fact. 
If it were true that some were certainly reprobated uncondition- 
ally to everlasting punishment, no temporal benefit could prop- 
erly be called salvation in any sense. The sense of the text evi- 
dently is that the salvation of all men is possible and salvation 
becomes actual to those who believe. In this respect God is spe- 
cially the Savior of believers. 

An example of another class of texts which show that the 
salvation of all is made possible is John 3:16, 17. ‘‘For God 
so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who- 
soever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting 
life... .. That the world through him might be saved.’’ The 
term ‘‘whosoever’’ in this passage, like other universal terms 
already considered, must properly be understood of all men. 
It is coextensive with ‘‘the world,’’ and the ‘‘whole world’’ 
(1 John 2:2). The term ‘‘world’’ can not be properly para- 
phrased the ‘‘world of the elect.’’ The elect are never called 
the world by the Seriptures, but are represented as having been 
called out of it. Jesus said, ‘‘Ye are not of the world, but I 
have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth 
you’’ (John 15:19). If the ‘‘world’’ in this text meant the 
elect it would declare whosoever of that elect world for whom 
Christ died would believe in him should not perish, implying 
that those of the elect who do not believe will perish, which 
would be self-contradictory. 

It may also be argued in favor of the universality of the 
opportunity of salvation that the redemption provided by Christ 
is coextensive with the effects of Adam’s sin. ‘‘But not as the 
offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of 
one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift 
by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto 


404 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


many. ... Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came 
upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of 
one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life’’ 
(Rom, 5:15, 18). That Christ has provided salvation for all 
those lost through Adam’s sin is shown by the same language 
being applied to both—‘‘judgment came upon all men.’’? Even 
Calvinists admit the ‘‘all men’’ of the first statement includes 
all the descendants of Adam. Then the salvation provided by 
Christ is affirmed in the second clause to be for the entire human 
race. 

3. The Gospel Is to Be Preached to All.—‘‘ And he said unto 
them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every 
creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but 
he that believeth not shall be damned’’ (Mark 16:15, 16). 
These solemn words clearly teach that the gospel is for all. Be- 
lief of it produces salvation, but disbelief leads to punishment. 
It is therefore implied that it is the duty of all men to believe. 
But why should the gospel be preached to all men if many of 
them are predestinated to eternal punishment? They could not 
possibly do other than reject it and so increase their damna- 
tion. If it makes possible to them no mercy it is not glad tid- 
ings, but a message of doom. 

If it is the divinely enjoined duty of all men to believe on 
Christ, then such belief is possible. If it is not possible, God is 
unjust in requiring it and insincere in offering it. If it is the 
duty of one to exercise saving faith in Christ for salvation, that 
faith must be preceded by the belief that Christ has actually 
provided salvation for him. But if the atonement is limited 
to the elect, then all others are required to believe a falsehood. 
Moreover, not one of the elect ean logically exercise saving faith 
or trust in the merey of God through Christ unless he. first have 
assurance before he is converted that he is of the elect and there- 
fore that there is salvation in Christ for him. 

Only on the ground that Christ died for all men, that pardon 
is possible to all, and that all may actually believe and be saved 
can the justice of God and the sincerity of the Lord Jesus be 
vindicated in the giving of the Great Commission. 

4. God Wills the Salvation of All—‘‘For I have no pleasure 
in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore 
turn yourselves, and live ye’’ (Ezek. 18:32). ‘‘As I live, saith 


APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 405 


the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; 
but that the wicked turn from his way and live’’ (Ezek, 33: 
11). ‘‘For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our 
Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the 
knowledge of the truth’’ (1 Tim. 2:3, 4). ‘‘The Lord is not 
slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but 
is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, 
but that all should come to repentance’’ (2 Pet. 3:9). These 
and many other texts of similar meaning which might be cited, 
so clearly represent God as unwilling that men should be lost 
and desirous that they be saved that little comment is needed. 

The last text quoted plainly states that God is ‘‘not willing 
that any should perish.’’ Therefore those who perish do so con- 
trary to God’s will, and not as a result of it as the Calvinistic 
doctrine of reprobation of the non-elect to punishment implies. 
God’s attitude towards those who perish is not merely one of 
passive willingness. He ‘‘will have all men to be saved.’’ This 
implies that those who perish do so in spite of all God can do. 
It implies that he would not fail to provide atonement for 
them and give whatever assisting grace is necessary to their 
acceptance of salvation. God has done and is doing his part to 
save all men. If they are not saved it is not his fault. This is 
evident from a casual reading of the Scriptures. 

The failure of men to be saved is represented in the Bible 
as being due to their own fault in not accepting God’s offered 
merey. ‘‘How often would I have gathered thy children to- 
gether, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, 
and ye would not!’’ (Matt. 23:37). ‘‘And ye will not come to 
me, that ye might have life’’ (John 5:40). These and all other 
texts which teach that men are lost because of their own re- 
fusal to accept salvation are proof that the atonement and the 
gracious help to be saved are provided for all. The destruction 
of sinners is described as being self-secured, which implies that 
their salvation was possible. If no atonement was made for 
reprobates and if no gracious help to accept salvation was pro- 
vided, then men could not properly be represented as respon- 
sible for their own destruction. The only reasonable sense of 
those texts which declare men are lost through their own fault 
is that all now have the opportunity to be saved, and that God 
has provided salvation for them and endowed them either by 


406 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


nature or by grace with power freely to accept it or to reject it. 

The universality of the opportunity for the salvation of all 
men is evident from the statements of the Scriptures already 
cited. Christ died for all men, not only for the elect. Salva- 
tion is provided for all, and all may actually be saved who 
choose to meet the conditions on which it is offered. All have 
power to meet those conditions. Jesus commanded that the gos- 
pel be preached to every creature and promised that salvation 
would be the portion of all who would believe it. God desires 
that all men be saved and has therefore done all he can do to 
save them. If any are not saved it is their own fault. 


IV. Predestination 


No scriptural soteriology is complete that omits a considera- 
tion of the question of predestination. Some of the questions 
already discussed in this chapter logically lead to the question 
of predestination. Heretofore it has been noticed incidentally. 
Now more particular consideration of it is in order. 

1. The Calvinistic Theory.—Calvinistic predestinarianism has 
held a large place in Protestant theology in the past, and has 
been a matter of extended controversy. The polemic discussion 
of it has greatly decreased in recent years, partly because of 
modifications in the views of Calvinists, and partly because of 
the fruitlessness of past controversy. Yet the Calvinistic sys- 
tem remains substantially unchanged and represents the belief 
of multitudes of professors of Christianity. 

A clear distinction should be made between the Scripture 
doctrine of predestination and that theory of predestination 
held by Calvinists. The latter is the first of the notable five points 
that differentiate Calvinism from Arminianism. The Remon- 
strants, a number of leading Arminians, formulated and set 
forth in the year 1610 the five points in which they differed with 
Calvinism. These are: (1) Conditionality of salvation; (2) 
Universality of the atonement; (3) Moral freedom; (4) Resisti- 
bility of grace; and (5) Possibility of final apostasy. The 
counter tenets of the Calvinistic system are: (1) Predestination ; 
(2) Limited atonement; (3) Moral necessity; (4) Irresistibility 
of saving grace; and (5) The absolute final perseverance of 
believers. ) 

Each of these two groups of doctrines is self-consistent. To 


APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 407 


hold any one of the five points logically requires the holding of 
all the others in that group. If the doctrine of particular pre- 
destination were true in the sense that only a part of the race 
were ordained to salvation, then it would be unreasonable, as 
true Calvinism holds that atonement should be made for that 
portion which God had decided not to save. Moral freedom 
would be excluded in favor of moral inability, as there could 
be no power to choose what does not exist. The irresistibility 
of saving grace would follow, for none can resist the purposes 
of the sovereign will of God. And if God had unconditionally 
predestinated one to be saved in heaven, he will necessarily cause 
him, not only to be converted, but to continue faithful to the 
end. 

Of these five points we have already had occasion to discuss 
the questions of the conditionality of salvation, the extent of 
the atonement, and free will. Now we are to give special con- 
sideration to the theories of predestination and final persever- 
ance. 

No higher authority on the Calvinistic theory of predestina- 
tion can be cited than the Westminster Confession of Faith. 
It has been revised at different times, especially by the Presby- 
terian Church in this country in the year 1903, but it is still 
substantially unchanged on the point of predestination. It 
reads, ‘‘By the decree of God for the manifestation of his glory, 
some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, 
and others foreordained to everlasting death. These men and 
angels, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly 
and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and 
definite that it can not be either increased or diminished. Those 
of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the 
foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and 
immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of 
his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of 
his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or 
good works, or perseverance in either of them or any other thing 
in the creature, as conditions and causes moving him thereto, 
and all to the praise of his glorious grace. As God hath ap- 
pointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and 
most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means there- 
unto. Wherefore, they who are elected being fallen in Adam, 


408 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


are redeemed by Christ; are effectually called unto faith in 
Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, 
sanctified, and kept by faith in his power through faith unto 
salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually 
called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elected 
only. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the 
unsearchable counsel of his own good will, whereby he extendeth 
or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign 
power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain to dishonor 
and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.’’ 

Predestination as here described has its basis in the Calvin- 
istic doctrine of divine decrees. According to this latter doc- 
trine all events are the result of decrees of God from eternity. 
Decrees concerning the destiny of men and angels are called 
predestination. The doctrine of decrees is stated in the West- 
minster creed as follows: ‘‘God from all eternity did by the 
most wise and holy counsel of his own will freely and unchange- 
ably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.’’ Disproof of the doc- 
trine of particular predestination will furnish sufficient refuta- 
tion of the objectional aspects of the doctrine of the divine 
decrees. 

Predestination is used of the divine predetermination of the 
destinies of men, both good and evil. Those ordained to salva- 
tion are said to be the elect. Those ordained to be lost are said 
to be reprobates. 

2. Election—In the Calvinistic sense of the term, election 
means that choice by God of particular persons to enjoy ever- 
lasting blessedness, which choice is made by him ‘‘without any 
foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of 
them or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes 
moving him thereto.’’ Election in the Calvinistic view is wholly 
by God’s sovereign will, and in no sense is it determined by the 
will or character of those elected. The question which here 
confronts us for answer is, Is Calvinian election identical with 
the election described in the Scriptures? Or what is the nature 
of the latter? 

The Scriptures mention three kinds of election. The first is 
the election of individuals to perform some particular service. 
Tsaac and Jacob were chosen of God instead of Ishmael and 
Esau to be the progenitors of Christ. Cyrus was chosen to build 


APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 409 


the temple, and the twelve apostles were elected by Jesus to 
fill that high office in his chureh. But no such election insured 
them against missing everlasting blessedness. ‘‘Judas by trans- 
eression fell,’’ and Paul recognized the possibility of his becom- 
ing a ‘‘castaway.’’ Election in this sense has no more to do 
with one’s being unconditionally chosen to final salvation than 
does one’s being divinely called to the gospel ministry today. 
Neither can it be shown that such election was irrespective of 
one’s character and qualifications for the performance of such 
work. 

The second kind of election referred to in the Bible is that 
of nations or groups of persons to exalted religious privileges. 
A notable example is the nation of Israel, which was elected to 
be the bearer of true religion and recipient of revelation prior 
to the advent of Christ. But the election of this nation, as a 
nation, did not result in an unconditional election to final sal- 
vation of the individuals composing it. If this sort of election 
included the final blessedness of each individual, then rebellious 
persons like Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, idolaters such as Ahab 
and Athaliah, and the betrayer and the crucifiers of our Lord 
will certainly all be saved. 

Christians especially are called the ‘‘elect.’’ As a class they 
are elected of God to salvation and future blessedness. As the 
Jews were once God’s chosen people, so now he has elected that 
all those who believe shall be his people. This is the great truth 
taught in the ninth chapter of Romans (vs. 24, 30). Whoever 
chooses to become a believer may join that class and thus become 
one of the elect. Election of believers, as a class, to salvation 
through Christ does not imply that particular individuals are 
unconditionally and infallibly predestinated to it nor that those 
who have become members have their salvation secured against 
the possibility of apostasy. Neither does the conditional election 
here described exclude, or imply the necessary reprobation of, 
those who fail of election through unbelief. 

A third kind of election is that of individuals to divine son- 
ship and future blessedness on the ground of divine foresight of 
their disposition freely to choose salvation. In the true and 
Biblical view of personal election men are not unconditionally 
chosen in order to faith, obedience, and holiness, but because of 
divine foresight of faith and obedience. This conditional pre- 


410 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


destination is the only kind that is compatible with the definite 
Seripture teaching of the conditionality of salvation, which has 
already been discussed. Also it can not be shown that any text 
of Seripture teaches other than a conditional election of in- 
dividuals. Jesus said, ‘‘I have chosen [elected] you out of the 
world’’ (John 15:19). But such choosing out was by his 
changing their hearts, which, according to other texts, is con- 
ditional upon their forsaking the world. Paul said, ‘‘God hath 
from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctifiea- 
tion of the Spirit and belief of the truth’’ (2 Thess. 2:13). 
The belief of the truth is not the result of the choosing, but the 
choosing is through foresight of that belief. Peter also writes 
to his brethren in Christ that they are ‘‘elect according to the 
foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the 
Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus 
Christ’’ (1 Pet. 1:2). In this text election is said to be accord- 
ing to the divine foreknowledge, but that election consists in 
having the work of salvation effected in their hearts. None are 
ever said to be of the elect who are not saved. 

A text which is especially depended upon by Calvinists for 
the support of their doctrine of election reads as follows: ‘‘For 
whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed 
to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among 
many brethren, Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he 
also called: and whom he ealled, them he also justified: and 
whom he justified, them he also glorified’? (Rom. 8:29, 30). In 
interpreting this 29th verse it is to be read forward, and not 
backward as the Calvinistic interpretation would require. No 
unconditional predestination is the ground of God’s foreknowl- 
edge of particular persons to be saved. The predestination men- 
tioned in this text is because of the divine foreknowledge. 
‘*Roreknow’’ from xmooéyvw (proegno) means simple knowing 
beforehand. It is to be clearly distinguished from ‘‘predes- 
tinate,’’ as is done in the text. To ‘‘foreknow’’ as here used is 
to know beforehand that the particular persons referred to will 
freely accept the salvation of Christ when it is offered to them. 
With this sense of ‘‘foreknow’’ what follows is clear. God 
foresaw that some would freely choose to love and serve him. 
Therefore he predetermined and made provisions accordingly 
that they should be ‘‘conformed to the image of his Son’’ 


APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 411 


through regeneration by the Spirit. But it was not enough that 
he should foreknow that some persons would choose to love and 
obey him, nor yet that he should predetermine to save them. 
‘‘Them he also called’’ through the preaching of the gospel. 
These heeded the eall of the gospel and consequently were ‘‘justi- 
fied’’ or pardoned. Lastly, those thus justified are ‘‘glorified’’ 
with God’s presence now and the blessedness of heaven here- 
after. No support whatever is given to Calvinistic election by 
this text. It is only when one’s mind is previously filled with 
the Calvinistie view that he can suppose that theory is supported 
by this text. 

Another text much relied on by predestinarians reads: 
‘‘ According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation 
of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before 
him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of chil- 
dren by Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure 
of his will’’ (Eph. 1:4, 5). For different reasons this text fails 
to support Calvinistie election. First there is no proof that the 
divine election and predestination to adoption is unconditional 
on the part of those elected. It can not be shown that the divine 
election of these before the foundation of the world was not on 
the ground of divine foresight of faith and love on their part. 
Such must be the nature of any personal election to salvation in 
the light of the common Scripture teaching of the conditionality 
of salvation. Again it can not be shown that this passage teaches 
personal election. The context shows clearly that it affirms, not 
a personal, but a collective election to the privileges of the gos- 
pel. In other words, who are meant by ‘‘us’’? The antecedent 
in verse 1 is saints or Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles. 
This group, believers, are the ones whom God had intended from 
the earliest period to make his people, and not the Jews, who 
later had been temporarily regarded as God’s elect. 

In the ninth chapter of Romans Paul sets forth the same 
great truth, which evidently was very dear to him, who was the 
Apostle to the Gentiles. The fact that those to whom Paul wrote 
consisted of both Jews and Gentiles, and that some Jews were 
disposed to question the right of the Gentiles to the divine favor, 
fave special occasion for the statement of this truth. The 
Apostle teaches that the admission of the Gentiles to the salva- 
tion of Christ was not a disregard by God of his promises to 


412 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Abraham, nor a contradiction of his former action in especially 
favoring the Jews, but that from before the time of Abraham, 
even ‘‘before the formation of the world,’’ he had chosen to 
make those his children who would believe. See Rom. 9: 24. 
The election of the believing Gentiles as well as Jews is fre- 
quently mentioned in the Ephesian epistle, especially in chapter 
1. After speaking of this election of Christians in general he 
mentions in verse 12 those who ‘‘first trusted in Christ,’’ the be- 
heving Jews, after which he says, ‘‘In whom ye also trusted, 
after that ye heard the word of truth.’’ The gathering ‘‘to- 
gether in one of all things in Christ’’ (v. 10) certainly refers to 
the admission of the Gentiles. 

Not only does predestinarianism lack support in these texts 
on which it most depends, but much positive teaching of the 
Seripture absolutely excludes it. Proof has already been given 
of the conditionality of salvation, the universality of the atone- 
ment, and the power of alternative choice. These leave no room 
for unconditional predestination, But they do remarkably affil- 
iate with the sense of predestination here supported. 

With the disproof of the unconditional election of a part of 
mankind to final blessedness, no place remains for the uneondi- 
tional reprobation of the remaining portion to future punish- 
ment. Election and reprobation fall together. Therefore no 
separate consideration of the latter is necessary. 

3. Absolute Final Perseverance.—One of the ablest advocates 
of this doctrine, A. H. Strong, states it as follows: ‘‘In view of 
the original purpose and continuous operation of God, all who 
are united to Christ by faith will infallibly continue in a state 
of grace and will finally attain to everlasting life.’’ This doc- 
trine that all who are once converted will certainly be finally 
saved in heaven is a logically necessary part of the predestin- 
arianism system. If God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass, 
including the election of a definite number to salvation and final 
blessedness ; if Christ died only for these elect and in such a way 
that their salvation must inevitably follow; if the saving grace 
of God is irresistible by the elect—then it logically follows that 
when they have been saved they will certainly persevere in holi- 
ness. But with the proof that Christ died for all, that salvation 
is possible to all, that all have the power freely to accept it or 


APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 413 


reject it, it logically follows that perseverance in holiness, like 
entrance to it, is optional with the individual. 

The following are some of the texts of Scripture which Dr. 
Strong assumes support the doctrine, but which in truth are al- 
together inconclusive. ‘‘My sheep hear my voice, and I know 
them, and they follow me: and [ give unto them eternal life; 
and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them 
out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater 
than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s 
hand’’ (John 10: 27-29). Doubtless this is true from the divine 
side in that God is able and willing to keep all his people from 
sinning. But it does not state that he will certainly keep them 
regardless of their choice to be faithful. Another text cited 
reads, ‘‘For the gifts and calling of God are without repent- 
ance’’ (Rom. 11:29). This verse affirms only Ged’s faithful- 
ness to fulfil his promises and is best understood in connection 
with Rom. 9:6. Except on the assumption of an absolute 
sovereignty of grace, it furnishes no proof of absolute final 
perseverance. Its use here is a begging of the question. An- 
other text often used reads ‘‘I know whom I have believed, and 
am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have com- 
mitted unto him against that day’’ (2 Tim. 1:12). This text 
merely declares the divine ability to keep, but does not. state 
that this keeping by God is certain nor independent of Paul’s 
choice to be kept. Other texts cited are Phil. 1:6; 2 Thess. 
3:3; 1 Pet. 1:5; and Rev. 3:10. The foregoing texts are re- 
garded by the ablest advocates of the doctrine as its best Serip- 
tural support, but they are all alike inconclusive. 

In opposition to the doctrine it may first be said that it is 
inconsistent with human freedom. It logically tends to produce 
carelessness in maintaining holiness of life. The Scriptures 
teach that ‘‘every branch in me [Christ] that beareth not fruit 
he taketh away’’ (John 15:2). Jesus said of those whom his 
Father had given him that ‘‘none of them is lost, but the son 
of perdition’’ (John 17:12). Though the apostle Paul was 
certainly saved and frequently so testified, yet he recognized 
the need of constant watchfulness ‘‘lest that by any means, 
when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway’”’ 
(1 Cor. 9:27). If apostasy is not possible to Christians, then 
all those many texts that warn against it are misleading. ‘‘ Look- 


414 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ing diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God’’ (Heb. 
12:15). ‘‘ Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to 
make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, 
ye shall never fall’’ (2 Pet. 1:10). If these texts mean any- 
thing it must be that Christians may apostatize. 


V. Human Conditions for Salvation 


The chief condition on the part of God in the salvation of 
men is the providing of the atonement through Christ.  sec- 
ondary objective condition is the divine drawing of the sinner 
to repentance, which has before been described as an uncondi- 
tional benefit of the atonement. But, as has been already shown, 
there are human conditions to be met. The human condition on 
which pardon is granted must be such that adequate security 
will be given that the pardoned sinner will cease his sinning; 
otherwise he will at once become guilty again. Also if pardon 
were granted without such a pledge of future good conduct, the 
declaration of the righteousness of God in the atonement would 
have little value. The divine holiness and law would still be 
despised by sinners, 

The leading human condition, then, must consist in a recog- 
nition of the atonement of Christ as a declaration of the right- 
eousness of God. Faith in that atonement as a ground for par- 
don is in its nature calculated to secure the future good conduct 
of him who is pardoned. That faith implies conviction of sin, 
else it would not be exercised. It implies repentance, which is 
the only attitude in which he can consistently commit himself 
to the mercy of God for pardon. It must also imply the purpose 
to obey God, which is an accompaniment of repentance. 

1. Faith in Christ—Faith is the primary condition for par- 
don, and is inclusive of all secondary conditions. Of the very 
many texts which represent faith in Christ as necessary to par- 
don, the citation of a few will be sufficient. ‘‘He that believeth 
on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the 
Son shall not see life’’ (John 3:36). ‘‘Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved’’ (Acts 16:31). ‘‘There- 
fore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through 
our Lord Jesus Christ’’ (Rom. 5:1). ‘‘For by grace are ye 
saved through faith’’ (Eph. 2:8). Christian experience also 
corroborates the universal testimony of the Scriptures that faith 


APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 415 


is the condition, and the only condition, on which salvation from 
sin ig possible. Men labor in vain to purchase peace with God 
by their own works. No amount of benevolent deeds or doing 
penance, no degree of penitence or earnestness in praying, will 
of itself give relief from the burden of sin. Only when the 
sinner, recognizing his guilt and helplessness, casts himself on 
the merey of God through Christ, is pardon granted and peace 
realized. 

In its very nature saving faith is not mere intellectual as- 
sent, as is belief of a historical fact. Neither is it an emotional 
exercise. It is of such a nature that it may be exercised volun- 
tarily. It is a matter of the will. All men everywhere are com- 
manded to believe. But intellectual assent to a truth is not 
directly a matter of choice. One can believe a thing is true only 
as he has adequate evidence that it is true. When he comes 
into possession of that evidence he believes involuntarily, and 
has no power directly to refrain from believing. Therefore 
saving faith is not to be identified with a belief that the Bible is 
the word of God, nor yet that the particular statements therein 
given are true. One may believe all these things and yet not 
be saved. Many unconverted persons do have such belief. 

Saving faith is of the nature of self-committal or trust. It 
is a voluntary reliance or trust in the merits of Christ for for- 
giveness. It is a confiding in the mercy of God through Christ. 
The penitent sinner casts himself on the merey of God which is 
offered through Christ. He not only believes Christ has suffered 
in his stead for his sins, but he rests in Christ for the salvation 
he so much needs. This is justification by faith. It is God’s 
way, and God bids men thus simply to trust. It is a safe way 
and surely effects peace with God, as many have proved by 
experience, 

But intellectual faith is a basis for saving faith in Christ. 
Only as one believes that God exists, that the Bible is God’s 
Word, that Christ is his Son and has atoned for sin, and that 
God offers pardon through him, ean saving faith in Christ be 
exercised. But that specifically Christian faith in God’s mercy 
is doubtless not always absolutely necessary to salvation. If so, 
then no salvation would be possible to the Old Testament saints, 
nor to any of the heathen. No one can be saved who refuses 


416 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


to trust in Christ if he has evidence that Christ is God’s remedy 
for sin. 

2. Repentance.—The Scriptures give a place to repentance as 
a condition of salvation which is scarcely inferior to that of 
faith. Jesus came preaching, ‘‘Repent ye, and believe the gos- 
pel’? (Mark 1:15). In his Pentecostal sermon Peter said to the 
guilty Jews, ‘‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the 
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins’’ (Acts 2:38). 
Again he said, ‘‘Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that 
your sins may be blotted out’’ (Acts 3:19). ‘‘God ... com- 
mandeth all men everywhere to repent’’ (Acts 17:30). 

Repentance expresses a twofold idea—a feeling of sincere 
sorrow and hatred for sin because of its sinfulness, and a definite 
turning away from sin because of that inward feeling. The 
original word in the Scriptures signifies a change of mind. The 
first aspect of repentance, the inward feeling of grief, is identi- 
cal with godly sorrow which ‘‘worketh repentance to salvation 
not to be repented of’’ (2 Cor. 7:10). Godly sorrow is the emo- 
tional aspect of repentance, and produces the change in purpose 
and conduct. 

A conviction of sin is implied in repentance. This is the 
work of the Spirit of God and is included in spiritual awaken- 
ing. It is not repentance, though it may lead to repentance. 
Many persons feel special conviction of their sins, but never 
repent. One may have a desire for salvation as a consequence 
of this spiritual awakening, but if as with the rich young ruler 
that desire is exceeded by other desires and no forsaking of sin 
and worldliness takes place that awakening is fruitless. 

True repentance includes the confession of sin and a disposi- 
tion to make whatever restitution may be required to make satis- 
faction for wrongs done. Confession implies, first, admission 
to oneself that he is guilty. It is to be made to God, against 
whom sin has been committed. ‘‘If we confess our sins, he is 
faithful and just to forgive us our sins’’ (John 1:9). Godly 
sorrow will cause one to pray as did the publican, ‘‘God be 
merciful to me a sinner’’ (Luke 18:13). Like the prodigal son 
he will pray, ‘‘Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in 
thy sight’? (Luke 15:21). Regret for sin included in true re- 
pentance will lead one to ask the forgiveness of those who have 
been wronged. Such asking forgiveness of one’s fellow men is 


APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 417 


taught in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:28, 24). The 
Seriptures also enjoin restitution. ‘‘If the wicked restore the 
pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of 
life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall 
not die’’ (Ezek. 33:15). When Zaccheus met Jesus he prom- 
ised to restore fourfold to all from whom he may have taken 
anything wrongfully. Such is the natural result of godly sor- 
row for sin. In confession and restitution only that which is 
possible is required in order to salvation. It is not necessary 
in order to pardon that one first have actually made right his 
wrongs against his fellow man, but certainly a genuine willing- 
ness to do so must precede pardon. Even confession to God in 
words is not necessary to salvation, though doubtless the atti- 
tude of heart implied in confession is essential. Many have been 
saved without any articulate prayer. Ordinarily such prayer is 
helpful to one seeking pardon, but certainly it is not requisite to 
forgiveness. . 

Similar to the foregoing conditions is that of forgiveness of 
one’s fellow men for their wrongs against him. Because hatred 
and the desire for revenge are in themselves sinful they are 
incompatible with an attitude of repentance. Jesus said, ‘‘ For 
if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will 
also forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, 
neither will your Father forgive your trespasses’’ (Matt. 6:14, 
15.) Forgiveness does not imply that one approves the sinful 
deeds of another, nor that one respects him in the same degree 
as if he had not done the evil; but it does mean that one shall 
hold no malice, but instead love his enemies. 

3. Obedience.—In some sense obedience to God is represented 
in the Scriptures as a necessary condition for salvation. ‘‘Ye 
see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith 
only’’ (Jas. 2:24). The inspired writer here does not reject 
faith as being necessary to salvation, but he does include works 
as being equally necessary with faith. From a superficial com- 
parison of this with the epistles of Paul it has sometimes been 
supposed that the writings of James and Paul were contradic- 
tory to each other. Paul said, ‘‘Therefore we conclude that a 
man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law’’ (Rom. 
3:28). A more careful comparison of these two passages shows 
there is no real contradiction. The context in both epistles 


418 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


throws much light on the meaning of the particular verses 
quoted. Paul is here opposing those Judaizing teachers who 
denied the possibility of free pardon of sin through faith and 
added the requirement of keeping the rites of the law of Moses. 
James seeks to correct the error of antinomian believers, who 
assumed that if they merely accepted and believed theoretically 
in Christ as the Messiah they would be saved regardless of how 
much sin they might afterward commit. Therefore they were 
discussing faith in different senses. Paul wrote of saving faith 
—self-committal or trust in the mercy of God. James had in 
mind mere intellectual assent.. This is clear from verse 19, ‘‘ The 
devils also believe, and tremble.’’ It is also evident that they 
use the term ‘‘justification’’ in different senses. Paul is teach- 
ing concerning the present judicial act of God by which men are 
now pardoned of the penalty of sin. James has special refer- 
ence to that escape from penalty in the day of judgment. 

Doubtless this is the true sense in which obedience is a con- 
dition of salvation. After one is pardoned through divine grace 
he must obey God to the extent of the light he has, else he can 
not remain justified. Saving faith is inclusive of repentance 
and repentance includes a purpose to obey God. Therefore re- 
pentance and obedience are but secondary conditions of salva- 
tion and are implied in faith, which is the condition for salva- 
tion. 


CHAPTER IV 
NATURE OF SALVATION 


Having shown the ground on which salvation is possible and 
the conditions on which it may be appropriated by the indi- 
vidual, next in order we take up an analysis of the work of 
salvation. What is comprehended in the work of salvation of 
the individual sinner? Evidently the initial work of salvation 
must overcome sin as to its penalty and ruling power. In its 
objective aspect it must effect remission of penalty and peace 
with God. In its subjective phase it must give power over the 
ruling power of sin. It must restore one to the condition of 
sonship in relation to God. And it must give the knowledge of 
salvation to him who is thus saved. 


I. Justification 

1. Sense of the Term.—The primary meaning of the term ren- 
dered justification in our New Testament is the acquittal of an 
accused person by a judicial decision. In its New Testament 
usage the term has a twofold signification. In its original usage 
it meant acquittal as when one who has been charged with a 
crime is declared by his judge to be innocent of the crime in 
the sense that he has not committed it. Seriptural examples of 
such a sense of the term are not uncommon. “‘If there be a 
controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that 
the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the right- 
eous, and condemn the wicked’’ (Deut. 25:1). ‘*‘Wisdom is 
justified of |[‘‘by,’’ A. S. V.] her children’’ (Matt. 11:19). 
‘“Ye are they which justify yourselves before men’’ (Luke 16: 
15). ‘‘The doers of the law shall be justified’? (Rom. 2:13). 
The ‘‘justification’’ of these texts is a justification on the ground 
of works, or a pronouncement of uprightness on the basis of 
character. But it must be evident to every believer in the Bible 
that such a legal justification of a human being before God can 
be only hypothetical, never actual. Because all are declared to 
be sinners, none can be truly pronounced just. In this sense 
only those can be properly pronounced just who are actually 
just. Inasmuch as all are sinners, ‘‘by the deeds of the law 
there shall no flesh be justified.”’ 

A second and more common use of the term in the New 

419 


420 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Testament is in the sense of pardon. In this sense the term 
‘“‘Justification’’ retains only a part of its original meaning. It 
does not signify in this sense that one is innocent of a crime of 
which he is accused. The person concerned is guilty of the crime 
with which he is charged. He is confessedly a sinner. His sin 
has been deliberate and altogether inexcusable. He is justly 
under sentence of penalty for his evil doings. No justification 
of such a person is possible in the first described sense of the 
term. But in some sense God justifies the sinner. The guilty 
one is either made righteous, or treated as if he were righteous, 
or both. : 

Doubtless as to his receiving a new heart in the work of 
regeneration the sinner igs made righteous. But a clear distine- 
tion must be made between justification and regeneration. It 
is true they are effected simultaneously, and the first would be 
useless without the second. But discriminating thought can not 
regard them as identical in meaning and nature. The first is 
objective, the second subjective. The first has to do with our 
past committed sins, the second with our disposition to sin in 
the future. We allow that the term ‘‘justification’’ is some- 
times used in the Seriptures to include the idea of the new birth. 
This is true especially in the Epistle to the Romans. But this 
is only when the writer has in mind the whole work of initial 
salvation and puts a part for the whole, as is not uncommon in 
uncritical usage in the same connection by Christians today. 
The Scriptures frequently mention justification and regenera- 
tion separately and sometimes clearly distinguish them as shall 
be shown in treating of regeneration. 

If justification were regarded as a declaration that one is 
actually righteous in the sense of subjective holiness through 
regeneration, then it would have nothing to do with the sinner’s 
guilt and actually committed sins of the past. The desert of 
penalty must still remain to be dealt with. In the evangelical 
sense justification is a pardon of past sins. It includes the idea 
of forgiveness and remission of penalty. 

2. Forgiveness and Remission Included.—The terms ‘‘justifica- 
tion’’ and ‘‘pardon”’ often include both the ideas of forgiveness 
and remission. They are to be so understood in their evangeli- 
eal meaning. When a man sins against God two things occur 
on the part of God. First God is aggrieved or made to feel dis- 


NATURE OF SALVATION 421 


pleasure because of the sinner’s unfaithfulness, and second as 
moral ruler God is under the obligation of inflicting Just penalty 
upon him. Therefore justification must include that change in 
the feelings on God’s part which we call forgiveness. This dis- 
pleasure of God with the sinner and the turning away of it is 
often represented in the Bible. ‘‘Though thou wast angry with 
me, thine anger is turned away.’’ 

But the leading aspect of justification as taught in the Bible 
is the remission of penalty for sin. To remit sin is to release 
from the penalty for it. It is an authoritative order of non- 
execution of the penalty on the sinner. It is as if the ruler 
treats the criminal as if he had done no wrong, by releasing 
him from the obligation to punishment. When a sin is com- 
mitted it can never come to pass that it was not committed. 
The sinner deserves punishment for his sin, and it can never 
come to pass that he does not deserve punishment. The fact of 
his desert can not be changed. Therefore to remit sin can mean 
only that through the suffering of Christ the punishment due 
the sinner is withheld. Then remission of sins is the authorita- 
tive order of non-execution of penalty. Justification in the sense 
of remission of penalty is a change of legal standing and not 
of one’s interior moral state. That change of heart is called 
regeneration, and is entirely different in its nature from justi- 
fication. When a civil ruler pardons a criminal no change is 
made in his inner character, but only in his amenability to pen- 
alty. So is the pardon of a sinner through faith in Christ. 

3. The Basis for Justification—The atonement of Christ is the 
only ground on which God can properly remit the penalty due 
sinners. This has been fully discussed in a preceding chapter 
on that subject. But different theories have been widely held 
as to the immediate ground for justification of the sinner. 

Those who deny an objective element in the atonement, in- 
eluding Socinians, Unitarians, and Universalists, necessarily 
hold an unbiblical ground of pardon of sin. Some of them deny 
the actuality of pardon, affirming that under a perfect govern- 
ment the penalty for violation of law must be inflicted on the 
violator. These assume the penalty to be trifling and that after 
it is endured blessedness follows for all men. Others teach that 
repentance is a sufficient ground for remission of penalty, that 
when a sinner becomes convinced of the advantage of virtue and 


422 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


turns to it God no longer regards him as deserving of penalty. 
Socinus taught justification on the ground of faith, but re- 
garded faith, not as a condition of forgiveness, but as a merito- 
rious work which in itself constituted righteousness. Such justi- 
fication would evidently be by works. All these theories are so 
manifestly unscriptural that a mere statement of them is suf- 
ficient refutation. 

The Calvinistic theory of the basis for justification repre- 
sents an opposite error from those already described. It affirms 
that the active obedience of Christ is so imputed to believers 
that they are as legally righteous as if they had been perfectly 
obedient to the law of God. In its extreme form it is anti- 
nomian. It rests on and is a part of the Calvinistic doctrine 
of imputation. It admits of no real forgiveness of the individ- 
ual. When Christ’s obedience has been counted or imputed to 
the sinner as if he had done that obedience, then he is properly 
regarded as just because he is just. This is the theory in its 
advanced form. Those whom God declares to be righteous must 
first be made righteous in fact. In this theory justification is 
forensic in the strictest sense. 

Imputation of righteousness to us in the sense that Christ 
obeyed the law of God in our stead and we therefore merit the 
reward of that obedience is not supported by the Scriptures, 
but is only an assumption of a certain class of theologians. Let 
us examine some of the texts chiefly relied upon for substantia- 
tion of this theory. ‘‘He shall be called, the Lord our righteous- 
ness’’ (Jer. 23:6). It is said he shail be called our righteous- 
ness because he is our righteousness. Doubtless this is true. 
But in what sense is he our righteousness? He can be such only 
in the sense that he is the proecurer of our righteousness or jus- 
tification. ‘‘For as by one man’s disobedience many were made 
sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made right- 
eous’’ (Rom. 5:19). Here again the words of the text furnish 
no conclusive proof of Calvinistic imputation. The question is, 
how does the obedience of Christ make many righteous? In 
our consideration of modal theories of native depravity, it has 
already been shown that the first part of this text can not mean 
many were made sinners by the imputation to them of the guilt 
of Adam’s sin. Through the passive obedience of Christ in suf- 
fering the death of the cross we are made righteous. This is 


NATURE OF SALVATION 423 


taught in many other texts (John 10:17, 18; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 
10:10). Our justification is through the blood of Christ. No 
reason exists for supposing the text under consideration teaches 
anything more than that we are justified as a result of Christ’s 
obedience in dying to atone for our sins. Other texts assumed 
to support the theory under review are equally void of support 
of it ag are those here cited. 

One of several valid arguments against the theory that the 
active obedience of Christ is imputed to us is given here as an 
example. If by imputation we are righteous because of the 
active and passive obedience of Christ, two results must follow: 
(1) That in our justification there is no place for pardon, be- 
cause it is not possible that both perfect obedience and pardon 
can be the portion of the same person at one time. (2) That we 
possess both an active and a passive obedience as a means of 
our justification, which is twice as much as Justice requires. It 
is absurd to suppose it is required of us both to obey the law of 
God and also to suffer the penalty for its violation. 

The true Seriptural basis for justification is the atonement 
of Christ. The death of Christ is a declaration of the righteous- 
ness of God and of his law in such a sense that when he freely 
remits the penalty for sin on the condition of faith there is no 
reflection on his perfect holiness. Justification is pardon and in 
its primary sense is an order of non-execution of penalty, and 
also it includes forgiveness. According to the Bible, justifica- 
tion is a real forgiveness of sin. 


Il. Regeneration 


1. The Doctrine of Regeneration.—Our treatment of the sub- 
ject of the initial work of salvation has hitherto been concerned 
only with justification, which was shown to mean pardon and to 
include the ideas of peace with God and remission of penalty. 
But the sinner needs more than this. Pardon of past sins can 
avail nothing for him unless he is given power to refrain from 
sinning in the future, or to keep justified. This can take place 
only by a work of grace in the pardoned sinner which will give 
him power over the power of sin that has ruled him. 

Though regeneration is coincident in time with justification, 
vet it is in its nature distinct from it. Justification has to do 
with one’s relation to God and his law, regeneration is con- 


424 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


cerned with the inner character of the one justified. Guilt is 
the ground for the need of justification, but depravity of the 
nature is the ground for the need of regeneration. While it is 
true, as formerly stated, that by using a part for the whole, jus- 
tification is sometimes made in the Scriptures to include regen- 
eration, yet the latter is frequently mentioned specifically and 
apart from justification. The Scriptures definitely distinguish 
between the two. The New Testament represents the Mosaic 
institutions as types of Christian truth. From Heb. 10: 19-22 
and other texts it is clear that the sprinkling of the blood and 
the washing of the sanctuary service are types of the way of 
salvation, or of the process by which the sinner comes to God. 
The blood on the brazen altar typifies justification or remission 
of sin. The washing of the laver typifies regeneration. ‘‘He 
saved us, by the washing [‘‘laver,’’ marg. A. S. V.] of regen- 
eration’’ (Titus 3:5). In this ancient type the distinction be- 
tween justification and regeneration is made very evident by 
the use of separate types which very appropriately represent 
these spiritual truths. 

The Scriptures furnish ample ground for believing in the 
actuality of such an element in the work of salvation as just 
described. Because we are dependent upon the Scriptures for 
our knowledge of the nature of the doctrine, a citation of some 
of the leading statements of Revelation bearing upon the sub- 
ject is in order. It is not important that these texts contain the 
term ‘‘regeneration’’ or its equivalent, but only that they set 
forth the idea commonly expressed by that term. ‘‘Not by 
works of righteousness which we have done, but according to 
his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and re- 
newing of the Holy Ghost’’ (Titus 3:5). Regeneration is fre- 
quently represented as being a new birth. ‘‘Except a man be 
born again, he can not see the kingdom of God. ... Ye must be 
born again’’ (John 3:3, 5, 7). ‘‘Being born again, not of cor- 
ruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which 
liveth and abideth forever’’ (1 Pet. 1:23). 

Regeneration is also represented as receiving a new heart. 
‘‘Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be 
clean. ... A new heart also I will give you, and a new spirit 
will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out 
of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh’’ (Ezek. 36: 


NATURE OF SALVATION 425 


25, 26). In the next verse God says, ‘‘I will .. . cause you to 
walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do 
them.’’ The idea is also represented as one’s becoming new. 
*‘If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are 
passed away; behold, all things are become new’’ (2 Cor. 5: 


17). Also it is represented as a resurrection. ‘‘You hath he 
quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins’’ (Eph. 2:1). 
It may also be called conversion. ‘‘Repent ye therefore, and 


be converted’’ (Acts 3:19). This term itself means merely to 
turn from one course to another. It may be used in the sense 
of one’s voluntarily turning from sin in repentance, but it may 
also properly be used to describe that change from a worldly or 
sinful state to a disposition to holiness which is effected by the 
Spirit of God. In this sense conversion is identical with regen- 
eration. 

Though justification and regeneration are not identical in 
nature, yet they occur simultaneously. Their distinction in na- 
ture does not require any chronological separation. There are 
these two distinct aspects to the work of initial salvation just as 
in the second work of grace, which shall be described later, the 
work of entire sanctification and the baptism by the Holy Spirit 
are distinct in their nature though coincident in time. For 
logical thought regeneration follows justification, but in expe- 
rience it is important that they synchronize because the new 
birth is necessary to one’s keeping justified after he is pardoned. 
The Scriptures represent them as occurring at the same time and 
they do so occur in normal Christian experience. They are both 
obtained by the same act of faith. Probably no proof is pos- 
sible of their ever occurring at different times if they ever do 
so take place. 

2. The Ground of the Need of Regeneration The necessity for 
the new birth has its basis in the fact of moral depravity. De- 
pravity has been shown in our anthropology to be a perversion 
or derangement of the moral nature. This derangement con- 
sists in a weakening of conscience, a perversion of the affec- 
tions, and in some sense a weakening of the will in moral voli- 
tions. Though the extent of depravity varies according ag one 
lives a moral or a vicious life, yet in itself it is native to all in 
a greater or less degree. In full harmony with a well-known 
law of life all men inherit a deranged moral nature from their 


426 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


first parents because of their original transgression. The fact 
of universal native depravity is not only a proof of Scripture, 
but is attested by universality of sin because depravity gives a 
bent to sin. 

This tendency to sin is the principal cause of all the sinning 
of men at the present time. It is so strong that men in their 
natural condition do not have power to refrain from sinning. In 
this sense they may be said to be totally depraved. Their ex- 
perience ig vividly described in the seventh chapter of Romans. 
‘To will is present with me; but how to perform that which is 
cood I find not’’ (v. 18). The Apostle makes a strong argument 
for justification by faith rather than by works by showing that 
this indwelling sinful nature excludes the possibility of a natural 
righteousness. This truth adequately explains that set forth in 
the third chapter that ‘‘all have sinned, and come short of the 
glory of God’’ (v. 23). In their unregenerate condition it may 
properly be said of all men, both Jews and Gentiles, ‘‘There is 
none righteous, no, not one’’ (v. 10). Because of this natural 
tendeney to commit sin which dominates men morally, the just- 
ified person must also be regenerated if he is to continue in a 
justified condition. This necessity of regeneration is in exact 
harmony with the memorable words of Jesus to Nicodemus, ‘‘ Ye 
must be born again.’’ The new birth is necessary in order to 
obedience to God, and also it is that by which one enters into the 
kingdom of God. It is an important aspect of salvation from sin 
and is necessary to the attainment of future blessedness. 

There is no ground in either Scripture or reason for the theo- 
ry that children may be so trained from infancy that they shall 
grow up in such a state that they need no regeneration. Because 
they inherit depravity, which is called an evil heart, they need 
a new heart as truly as do those who have voluntarily committed 
sin and are guilty. No more reason can be given for the assump- 
tion that children can outgrow native depravity than that older 
persons can so overcome depravity that they will need only par- 
don for salvation. 

While it is true that children, as well as others, all need to be 
born again, it does not therefore follow that they all need jus- 
tification. Justification is needed only by those who are guilty of 
personal sin. It is conceivable that when a child comes to the 
recognition of moral responsibility, he might, if he has been prop- 


NATURE OF SALVATION 427 


erly instructed, seek and obtain a new heart without ever having 
committed any voluntary sin. Such a person would need no 
justification, because he could have no guilt, yet he would be 
regenerated as truly as if he had committed actual transgression. 
It is further conceivable that he might continue in holiness by 
virtue of that regeneration and never experience guilt. Only on 
the Calvinistic theory of inherited guilt and total depravity is 
such an experience as here described inadmissible. 

Some one may object that this is only a possible conception 
in theory, but is never an actual fact in human experience. With- 
out doubt almost all men fall into sin when they come to moral 
responsibility and need both pardon and regeneration for sal- 
vation. But only the all-knowing God ean consistently say there 
are no exceptions to the general truth that all men actually sin 
at some time. God has not made such a statement, as shall be 
shown. Some very devout Christians whose relationship with 
God is beyond question affirm that they have no knowledge of 
having wilfully sinned. Must we tell such they have sinned? Or 
in the religious teaching of children, yet in the state of innocence, 
must we tell them they should ask God to pardon their sins to be 
saved when they have no sense of guilt? Why not rather teach 
them they should seek God for a new heart so they will be able 
to refrain from falling into sin? Must they be told they must 
first sin, then repent and obtain pardon in order to salvation? 
Or must religious teaching concerning themselves in relation to 
God be withheld until they have first stumbled over the precipice 
of guilt? Must ‘‘we do evil that good may come’’? Is it neces- 
sary that we first sin against and grieve God before we can come 
into conscious favor with him? ‘‘God forbid.’’ 

But does every human being at some time commit sin? Doubt- 
less all men both before and after regeneration violate the ab- 
stract law of righteousness because of the limitations of ignor- 
ance. But such short-comings, mistakes, and unavoidable failures — 
effect no guilt and need no pardon in the evangelical sense. A 
few texts are sometimes cited as proof that all men without ex- 
ception have sinned or do sin. ‘‘ All have sinned, and come short 
of the glory of God’’ (Rom. 3:23). This and certain other texts 
teach that without regeneration holiness is impossible. The 
Apostle here teaches that none, either Jew or Gentile, have lived 
righteously in their natural condition. It has no reference to 


428 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


infants, of whom Jesus said, ‘‘Of such is the kingdom of heaven.’’ 
This text has no bearing on the point under discussion. Another 
text reads, ‘‘If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a 
liar, and his word is not in us’’ (1 John 1:10). The vital ques- 
tion here is, does the word ‘‘we’’ refer to each person individual- 
ly or to mankind as a whole? The latter must be its sense, as 
shown by its use in verse 8: ‘‘If we say that we have no sin, we 
deceive ourselves.’’ But ‘‘we’’ here can not be true of Christians, 
for in the preceding verse the inspired writer states that ‘‘the 
blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.’’ In this 
whole passage, then, ‘‘we’’ must mean mankind. The writer is 
opposing the Gnostic heresy which referred all sin to the body 
and held that the soul had no sin and did not sin. The text affirms 
that mankind is actually sinful and has sinned, but that Christ 
provides a remedy for both. It does not contradict the idea 
that one may possibly be regenerated before he goes into sin. 

3. Nature and Effects of Regeneration —What then is the ex- 
act nature of regeneration? We have already stated it effects 
salvation from the reigning power of sin. It gives one power 
to triumph over the strong natural tendency to evil resulting 
from depravity of the moral nature. But this is only the effect 
of regeneration and is not an answer to the question as to what 
is the real nature of the work of the new birth. The statements 
of Scripture relative to regeneration are concerned almost en- 
tirely with the effects of it rather than with any psychological 
or inner moral change that may be effected. And the effects 
are after all the really important aspect of regeneration. 

These effects are by the Bible represented as being caused by 
an inner change: that change, however, is described in various 
figures that have much value for practical thought in represent- 
ing the greatness of the change effected, but they need inter- 
pretation if they are to furnish any help in understanding the 
exact nature of regeneration. If it be asked in what sense our 
spirits must be born again, it must be admitted that it is cer- 
tainly not in the sense that they have a beginning of existence 
or consciousness then. Neither is there a removal or adding of 
faculties. Evidently a change takes place that is in some respects 
analogous to physical birth, but it is certainly not analogous to 
every aspect of natural birth. Likewise under the figure of 
one’s becoming a new creature or being resurrected, the analogy 


NATURE OF SALVATION 429 


applies only in certain aspects and might easily be carried too 
far in an attempt at interpreting them to show the real nature 
of the change thus described. 

Regeneration is in some sense an overcoming of moral de- 
pravity, but it is not a complete removal of depravity from one’s 
nature. The Scriptures teach that depravity remains in the re- 
generated and is entirely cleansed away only in entire sanctifi- 
cation, which is subsequent to regeneration, as shall be shown 
later. The Scriptures describing regeneration do not describe 
it as being an entire sanctification from inbred sin. In regenera- 
tion one is saved from the reigning power of the depraved nature. 
Justification is salvation from the guilt of sin, regeneration is 
salvation from the reigning power of sin, and entire sanctification 
is salvation from the indwelling of sin. Each of these aspects 
of salvation is distinct in nature. Regeneration is a giving of 
power to conquer depravity, to deliver from its ruling power. 
It is the incoming into one’s life of the Holy Spirit’s working 
by which one is enabled effectually to volitionate obedience to 
God. The unregenerated seeker after righteousness of the sev- 
enth of Romans is made by the Apostle to say, ‘‘To will is pres- 
ent with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.’’ 
Regeneration overcomes this effect of depravity by empowering 
one to perform the good. 

To regenerate, then, is first and chiefly to strengthen the will 
in moral volitions. Assisted by the power of God, the regenerate 
man is able to triumph over the sinful tendency of the depraved 
nature and to do what is right. But regeneration is also a change 
of heart or of the affections. The new birth causes one to love 
what he once did not love and to cease to love sinful things he 
once loved. These holy emotions, like the strengthening of the 
will, are effected by the incoming of the power of the Spirit of 
God. Doubtless this operation of the divine Spirit extends to 
the conscience and the whole moral nature in strengthening it 
in order to obedience. This regenerating work of the Spirit is 
well described by the apostle Paul as follows: ‘‘For the law 
[power, as is the sense of ‘‘law’’ in Rom. 7:23] of the Spirit 
of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law | power| 
of sin and death’’ (Rom. 8:2). 

Though regeneration is always great in its effects and super- 
natural in character, yet in consciousness all are not equally 


430 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


aware of the same degree of change. The change effected is more 
radical in some persons than in others. He who has lived a 
vicious life and in addition to great natural depravity has ac- 
quired strong tendencies to evil because of much indulgence in 
sinful conduct will, when born again, likely experience a con- 
sciousness of radical change in affections, inclinations, and de- 
sires. Another person of pious parents who has himself lived a 
morally upright life may be conscious of much less of inner 
change when born again. This is at least one reason why very 
wicked persons often have more definite conversions than do 
those less depraved. But persons of the latter class may be as 
truly saved as are those who experience a more radical change. 

4. Possibility of Present Regeneration—Not a few professed 
Christians hold the error of baptismal regeneration. This theo- 
ry is especially prevalent in the older communions—the Roman, 
Lutheran, and Anglican. Those who hold this conception of re- 
generation usually deny the possibility in this life of regeneration 
in the Biblical sense. Who can suppose that mere water could 
effect a change in one’s moral nature? Baptism is a sign of an 
interior cleansing, but not its cause. The Seriptures closely con- 
nect regeneration with baptism, as they do also remission of sin, 
but neither is represented as being the result of baptism. Those 
who deny the supernatural work of the Spirit of God in present 
regeneration do so in clear contradiction to the Seriptures. It 
is constantly represented in the Bible as a present experience. 
‘“As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the 
sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were 
born, .°) of /God’’ /(John 1:12) 19), 4° Beng born caine 
by the Word of God’’ (1 Pet. 1:23). ‘‘Every one that doeth 
righteousness 7s born of him’’ (1 John 2:29). ‘‘ Whosoever is 
born of God doth not commit sin... because he is born of God’’ 
(1 John 3:9). ‘‘Every one that loveth is born of God’’ (1 
John 4:7). ‘*‘Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is 
born of God’’ (1 John 5:1). ‘‘ Whosoever is born of God sin- 
neth not’’ (1 John 5:18). These texts clearly show that re- 
generation is a present experience, that it is obtained by faith, 
and that it is productive of holiness of life. These texts alone 
are sufficient refutation of the theory of baptismal regeneration 
in that they describe the results of regeneration in the Biblical 


NATURE OF SALVATION 431 


sense as being far greater than the consequences of baptismal 
regeneration are known to be. 

But another class of modern religious teachers deny the 
actuality of present regeneration on an entirely different 
ground, They affirm the Greek word yevvaw (gennao) trans- 
lated ‘‘born’’ in our common English version is more properly 
rendered ‘‘begotten.’’ Then they assume the texts quoted in 
the preceding paragraph teach that Christians are only begotten 
of God, that they are in an embryonic state and will be born 
at the resurrection of the body. But the theory is without 
Seriptural support and betrays on the part of its supporters a 
very superficial acquaintance with the use of the Greek term 
under consideration. We freely admit that the word in its vari- 
ous forms is used of the procreative act of the father, but it is 
also inclusive of the giving birth to the child by the mother. 
Dr. William Strong says in his Exhaustive concordance that it 
means to ‘‘bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be de- 
livered of.’’ 

Citations of a few texts will show it is properly understood 
to mean birth. ‘‘And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, 
of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ’’ (Matt. 1:16). 
If the form of the Greek word yevvaw, (gennao) here trans- 
lated ‘‘born’’ is referred to Joseph, then the virgin birth must 
be denied, but this is clearly affirmed in the verses immediately 
following. If it is referred to Mary, which ig evidently the 
meaning of the text, then it here means birth as our common 
translation renders it. ‘‘Now when Jesus was born in Bethle- 
hem of Judea’’ (Matt. 2:1). Here the word must refer to the 
bringing forth of Jesus by Mary, for it is clear he was con- 
ceived of the Holy Ghost in Nazareth and not in Bethlehem 
(Luke 1:26). ‘‘Among them that are born of women there 
hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist’’ (Matt. 11:11). 
‘‘Asg soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no 
more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world’’ 
(John 16:21). In neither of these texts can the Greek term 
mean other than the actual bringing forth of the child by the 
mother. When by this term Christians are said to be born of 
God and consequently to be children of God it may properly be 
understood to mean that the new birth is now actual. That the 


432 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


original word means they are now only in an embryonic state 
is, to say the least, an unscholarly assumption. 


lil. Sonship 


1. Children of God.—As a result of, and at the time of, justi- 
fication and regeneration men become children of God. This 
relationship is often referred to in the Scriptures as being a 
blessed condition of the saved. ‘‘As many as are led by the 
Spirit of God, they are the sons of God’’ (Rom. 8:14). ‘‘For 
ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus’’ (Gal. 
3:26). ‘‘Because ye are sons [of God], God hath sent forth the 
Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father’’ (Gal. 
4:6). ‘‘Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, 
but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God”’ 
(Eph. 2:19). ‘‘Behold, what manner of love the Father hath 
bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God... . 
Now are we the sons of God’’ (1 John 3:1, 2). All men are 
children of God by creation, but the sonship here described is 
that relationship resulting from faith in Christ. 

2. Sonship by Adoption.—Under the Roman law adoption was 
by formal purchase with money in the presence of witnesses of 
the child by the one who adopted him. The child thus adopted 
entered into the family of his new father as heir equal with any 
other natural sons the father might have. The Apostle prob- 
ably had in mind this custom when he wrote: ‘‘Ye have not re- 
ceived the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received 
the spirit of adoption, whereby ye cry, Abba, Father’’ (Rom. 
8:15). ‘‘That we might receive the adoption of sons’’ (Gal. 
4:5). Under this relationship men are represented as having 
been alien from God. Because of sin and rebellion they are 
separated from God and out of filial relation with him, deserv- 
ing of wrath rather than favor. When by the grace of God 
through Christ they are forgiven and their penalty is remitted, 
when they again become heirs to the inheritance of God’s bless- 
ings, when God can consistently show his love for them in gra- 
cious benefits, then they may well be represented as having been 
adopted as the children of God. In this aspect sonship has its 
principal ground in justification. 

3. Sonship by Birth—A larger basis of sonship is found in 
the fact of regeneration. Those who are born of God are mem- 


NATURE OF SALVATION 433 


bers of his family and his children. ‘‘As many as received him, 
to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them 
that believe on his name: which were born... of God’’ (John 
1:12, 18). Here sonship is evidently the result of being born 
of God. Believers are children of God in the sense that they 
are of like nature with him by having his Spirit. The reason 
why those born of God do not commit sin, says the apostle John, 
is because ‘‘his seed remaineth in him: and he can not sin, 
because he is born of God’’ (1 John 3:9). Ag children of 
earthly parents are of like nature as their parents, so the re- 
generate person has a holy nature like God his father. 
IV. Consciousness or Assurance of Salvation 

1. Fact of Assurance.—No knowledge is of such vast impor- 
tance to the individual as that he is personally accepted of God, 
that his sins have been pardoned, that God looks upon him with 
pleasure, that he is born of the Spirit, that he is a child of God, 
and that he is on the way to eternal blessedness. It is reasonable 
to suppose those who are thus saved are conscious of their salva- 
tion. The infinite cost of salvation is ground for the expecta- 
tion that God will give definite assurance of acceptance to those 
whom he saves. He so loved men that he spared not his own 
Son; that he sent his Holy Spirit to convict, convert, sanctify, 
and guide them; that he inspired holy men to write the sacred 
Seriptures for the revelation of the way of salvation; that he 
calls, qualifies and sends ministers to preach salvation to sin- 
ners; and that he instituted his church as a means for the propa- 
gation of the gospel. Surely after doing all this he has not 
failed to make possible to the individual Christian the knowl- 
edge of that most important fact—that he is a child of God. 

If assurance of one’s individual acceptance by God is not 
possible, then the most devout are of all men most miserable. 
If one is fully awakened to the awfulness of his sin against God, 
if he is truly sorry for his sin and deeply penitent, if he sin- 
cerely hungers after the peace and love of God, if he earnestly 
seeks to make sure of blessedness beyond this life—it would be 
a sad condition indeed if he must ever struggle throughout life 
in uncertainty as to whether he is a child of God or a child of 
the devil, whether he is saved or lost. 

But thank God, assurance of acceptance with God is possible. 
It is, not only an inference from reason, but also a clear truth of 


434 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the Seriptures that we may know we are saved. ‘‘We know 
that we have passed from death unto life’? (1 John 3:14). 
‘“We know that we are of God’’ (1 John 5:19). ‘‘We are of 
God’’ (1 John 4:6). ‘‘We know that if our earthly house of 
this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a 
house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens’’ (2 Cor. 
5:1). Such certainty of personal salvation is frequently repre- 
sented in the Bible. 

2. Nature of Assurance.—More general agreement exists 
among Christians as to the possibility of assurance than con- 
cerning its exact nature. Actual experience of it by the in- 
dividual is more important to him than is his belief concerning 
its source, mode, or nature. Yet a proper comprehension of 
the nature of it is important to protect one against doubt and 
confusion. } 

Those who hold the doctrine of unconditional election of in- 
dividuals to eternal blessedness hold also a theory of assurance 
in harmony with that doctrine. With them assurance consists 
in some individuals being so highly favored of God as to be 
assured that they are eternally elected to certain future blessed- 
ness. Such a view of assurance is without Scriptural support 
as truly as is the system with which it is connected. The assur- 
ance for which we contend is a consciousness of present ac- 
eceptance with God, which will result in future blessedness if 
one is loyal to the truth. This assurance may be with some a 
strong, unwavering conviction of their adoption. With others 
it is less definite, but yet a comfortable persuasion, though it 
may be accompanied at times with temporary doubts. Assur- 
ance may grow stronger with the lapse of time as one has longer 
experience in the Christian life with the accompanying evidences 
that God is with him. 

The sources of assurance are two—the witness of the Spirit 
of God and the witness of one’s own spirit. ‘‘The Spirit itself 
beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God’’ 
(Rom. 8:16). No text in the Bible is clearer than is this one 
concerning the sources of assurance of sonship. According to 
it there are two distinct witnesses to our salvation. This does 
not mean there are two subjective assurances. Many witnesses 
may all testify to a single truth. The witness of the Holy Spirit 
is sometimes denied as being distinct from the witness of one’s 


NATURE OF SALVATION 435 


own spirit. The original word, ovppaptveéw (summartureo), 
in this text rendered ‘‘beareth witness with,’’ is properly trans- 
lated. It means a joint testifying. ‘‘With’’ implies relation of 
two or more. Here the Spirit of God witnesses ‘‘with’’ our 
spirits to the fact of our salvation. It can not properly be 
understood that he witnesses to our spirits. The reading of the 
common English version of this text has the overwhelming sup- 
port of critical authorities. 

Those who deny there are two witnesses to our salvation us- 
ually deny a distinct witness of the personal Spirit of God, re- 
garding the statements of Scripture so interpreted as meaning 
merely the divinely given disposition to godliness. But in the 
nature of things there is no reason for denying a distinct wit- 
ness of the Spirit. Throughout the Scriptures the Holy Spirit 
is represented as witnessing to other truths. Why might he not 
also testify directly to the believer that he is accepted of God? 
But if the text under consideration does not teach there are 
two witnesses, then it does not teach the witness of one’s own 
spirit. It must then read, ‘‘The Spirit itself beareth witness 
to our spirit.’’ With such a rendering it makes the Holy Spirit 
the only source of assurance and our spirit the recipient of its 
testimony. Yet even such an improper rendering of this text 
would not exclude the truth of a witness by our own spirit as 
taught in other texts. 

3. Witness of God’s Spirit—The fact of the witness of the 
Spirit is clear both in the Scriptures and in the experience of 
many Christians. It is a direct testimony to our adoption of 
God. As it is distinct from the witness of our own spirits, as 
has been shown, it is therefore a direct witness. If as some have 
assumed his only witness were through the work of regeneration 
which he accomplishes, then it would be identical with the wit- 
ness of one’s own spirit, and we would have but the one witness 
to our sonship. But we have already shown that the Bible 
teaches two distinct witnesses. 

The mode of the Spirit’s witnessing is by a direct operation 
within the mind of the Christian by which he possesses a con- 
viction that he is accepted of God. Normally there is no mani- 
festation apart from that conviction which he effects. There is 
no audible voice, nor even an inner voice. His witness is not 
so much a communication to the mind, as an effect in the mind. 


436 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


He is not limited to natural modes of communication of thought. 
He has no need of employing human language, audible sounds, 
and our physical auditory organs, the ears. He causes the 
knowledge which he desires us to possess to arise in our conscious- 
ness immediately. Knowledge thus obtained is more certain 
than if it reached us through the natural channels of communi- 
cation, unless communications of the latter class be accompanied 
by certain evidence that they are from God. 

The exact mode of the Spirit’s witness is inscrutable to us. 
But the mystery of the manner of his testimony has no weight 
against the reality of it. We believe many things that are mys- 
terious. Thought itself is an insoluble mystery for us, yet we 
know we think. Not only is the witness of the Spirit mysterious 
in its mode, but also the Spirit’s work of regeneration is mys- 
terious. Yet as we are cognizant of the fact of regeneration in us, 
so are we also of the witness of the Spirit. 

This witness may be illustrated in a measure by the testi- 
mony or communication of the divine Spirit concerning other 
facts. As he testifies to believers that they are children of God, 
so in a similar manner he testifies to the unconverted that they 
are sinners. This is commonly called conviction. Jesus said 
the Spirit would ‘‘convince the world of sin.’’ Conviction of 
sin may result from other than the direct operation of the Holy 
Spirit, as from the preaching of the Word of God or one’s own 
reasoning. Imminent danger may be the occasion for such con- 
viction. But apart from all this it is evident that when no 
such circumstances are present to awaken the sinner the Holy 
Spirit sometimes directly effects deep conviction of sin and 
awakening to its awfulness. Many persons have distinctly cog- 
nized this testimony of the Spirit to their sinfulness who have 
not known it so distinctly in witness to their salvation. He also 
witnesses in a similar manner to other truths in experience. 
Not infrequently persons who have prayed for physical healing 
of disease have suddenly found themselves in possession of a 
settled conviction that they would be cured, even before any 
physical change was felt and when they were not engaged in 
prayer nor exercising active faith. Special direction by the 
Spirit of God may be by this same general method of his working 
in our minds to effect that knowledge he wills we have. 

In the experience of some, the witness of the Spirit may be 


NATURE OF SALVATION 437 


recognized as being directly from him. Others have a settled con- 
viction that they are children of God, the fruits of the Spirit 
appear in their lives, and those who know them best have full 
confidence in their being truly converted, but these persons have 
no knowledge that they have ever had the witness of the Spirit. 
In other words, many devout believers receive the witness of the 
Spirit and the assurance it gives, without being aware that it 
is from him. Probably this is true of the experience of most 
believers. But inasmuch as the assurance is the important thing 
rather than the mode by which it is received, the absence of clear 
cognition of the cause of it is not improper. 

4. Witness of Our Spirit—The second ground of assurance 
mentioned by the apostle Paul is the testimony of our own Spirit. 
‘‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are 
the children of God’’ (Rom. 8:16). This witness is not repre- 
sented as being inferior to the witness of the Spirit of God as 
a ground of assurance. It is indirect, while the latter is direct. 
Though it is indirect it is not therefore any less divine than is 
the direct divine witness, nor a less valid ground of assurance. In 
this witness of our own spirit we compare the facts of our relig- 
ious experience with the facts of the Bible. The agreement of our 
experience with the Scripture representations of what consti- 
tutes Christian experience furnishes evidence that one is a Chris- 
tian. The witness of our own spirits really includes a logical 
process. It is so even though ordinarily we may not be con- 
scious of such a process. Usually the one seeking salvation ex- 
pects certain fruits of conversion, and when they are experienced 
his mind leaps to the conclusion that he is a child of God, with- 
out any consciousness of a process of reasoning. 

Specific aspects of Christian experience illustrate this ground 
of assurance. When the penitent sinner has in living faith 
committed himself to the merey of God, he may suddenly become 
aware of a new and warm love for God such as he has never 
felt before. When he remembers that ‘‘every one that loveth 
is born of God, and knoweth God’’ (1 John 4:7), he has ground 
for assurance that God has given him a new heart. Or he may 
come to realize a freedom from guilt and from the burden of 
his sins and instead a new sense of peace and joy. When he 
compares this experience with the statement, ‘‘Therefore being 
justified by faith, we have peace with God’’ (Rom. 5:1), he 


438 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


again has ground for believing he is a Christian. The apostle 
John writes, ‘‘We know that we have passed from death unto 
life, because we love the brethren’”’ (1 John 3:14). The love of 
Christians for one another is a prominent characteristic of them. 
If one finds when he believes on Christ that his heart is especially 
attracted to other Christians so that he loves them as he has not 
loved them before, he knows, as did the inspired writer, that he 
has passed from death unto life. 

If he finds himself possessed of an inclination to please God 
because of unselfish love for him, if he discovers he has new 
desires and appetites, if he finds the various fruits of the Spirit 
in his life, he may properly reason that he is a new creature. 

5. Assurance in Relation to Doubts—The witnessing to sonship 
either by the divine Spirit or by one’s own spirit is not limited 
to that initial testimony given at the time of conversion. These 
assurances continue to be received from time to time by the 
saved person. In the classical text on assurance, ‘‘The Spirit 
itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children 
of God,’’ it is represented as a present experience of those al- 
ready saved, and there is no hint that such testimony ceases 
with the witness received at conversion. But this special witness 
is not continuous or constant. It is experienced at irregular 
intervals. At times other than these periods of special assur- 
ance the Christian is liable to be attacked with doubts. These 
doubts are usually the result of one’s holding the false assump- 
tion that one must always be conscious of ecstatic emotions or 
other experiences which he has had at a previous time and which 
then were ground for assurance. 

In the absence of special assurance from the Holy Spirit 
and when doubts assail, the witness of one’s own spirit may yet 
form a sure ground of assurance. Even if one is not at the 
particular time conscious of any special emotions of love, joy, 
or peace he may yet properly rest his confidence on the ex- 
periences of the past. But in addition to these as ground for 
assurance are the promises of God given in the Bible. There 
salvation is offered on the condition of repentance and faith. 
When one knows he has sincerely repented of sin and in faith 
thrown himself on the mercy of God, the promises of God are 
themselves valid ground for assurance. And the conditions for 
salvation are such that one may know, if properly instructed, 


NATURE OF SALVATION 439 


that he has met them. What can form better ground for assur- 
ance of salvation than the immutable Word of God? - 

Nowhere in the Bible are men told to seek for the particular 
witness of the Spirit. No instance is given of seekers for salva- 
tion tarrying for a witness. Jesus and the apostles exhorted 
men and women to believe. It is not for the seeker to concern 
himself particularly about the witness of the Spirit. That is 
God’s business, and he will attend to it in his own time and 
manner. It is the sinner’s duty to repent and believe and in 
doing this he will at least have the evidence of the Word of 
God that he is forgiven. This is sufficient to stand upon. God 
will give any other witness he may please. The witness does 
not save; therefore is not requisite to one’s salvation. The wit- 
ness of the Spirit is an added blessing. Repentance and faith 
are not of themselves the ground for assurance of salvation, 
but are conditions for it. But when those conditions have been 
met the divine promise becomes a ground of assurance. This is 
another example of the witness of our own spirits. 

Assurance varies greatly in degree in different individuals 
and in the same person at different times. This variability is 
due to several causes. Personal temperament is a determining 
factor. Some are naturally mild and others are intense. Some 
are given to confidence and hope, while others are timid, doubt- 
ing, and pessimistic. Also the degree of one’s assurance is de- 
termined greatly by the depth of his own spiritual life. If he is 
thoroughly devoted to the will of God he is more likely to have 
strong assurance than if he is wavering and lacking in con- 
secration. Again, the witness of the Spirit may correspond in 
intensity with that of our own spirit, and if one has not been 
greatly depraved by sin before conversion he will necessarily be 
conscious of a less radical change in certain respects in regen- 
eration than will one more depraved. Such persons are not 
therefore less assured of salvation than he who has been more 
sinful, because of other determining factors which enter in. 
Finally, God may be pleased to give a less degree of assurance 
of sonship as a means of testing our faithfulness in serving 
him. He is pleased to test his people in some manner and the 
absence of strong assurance may properly be employed as a 
means if he wills. 


440 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


V. Holiness of Life 

By holiness of life is meant a life free from sinning. It is 
also called a holy life and a sinless life. All of these designa- 
tions are correct. Thus far in this chapter we have been con- 
cerned with the initial work of salvation. It is this supernatural 
work of salvation and especially regeneration that makes holi- 
ness of life possible. This subject might have been discussed 
under the heading of regeneration except for the need of em- 
phasis and elaboration due to the prevalence of erroneous views. 
Few aspects of Christian truth have been more misunderstood 
and misrepresented than has this. 

1. The Sense of the Scriptures—That Christians should and 
do live lives free from sin is a clear truth of the Scriptures. 
This truth is declared by the different New Testament writers, 
and is represented by them in a variety of forms. They dis- 
allow sinning in any degree. If one is a Christian he commits 
no sin; if he sins he is not a Christian. The Bible not only 
exhorts men to holiness of life, but positively condemns those 
who do commit sin. No attempt is made here to give an ex- 
haustive array of texts in support of a sinless life by Christians, 
but the prevalence of the denial of the possibility and necessity 
of a life of holiness by them is sufficient warrant for the citation 
of several representative texts on the subject. 

It was shown in our anthropology that all men commit sin 
because of natural depravity. But it was said of Christ, ‘‘Thou 
shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their 
sins’? (Matt. 1:21). This necessarily implies that he would 
save them from their sinning if his salvation is a complete re- 
demption. Regeneration has already been shown to give reign- 
ing power over sin. It is generally admitted that a Christian 
should not commit any particular sin. 

The Bible command is to sin not. When Jesus had healed 
the impotent man at the Pool of Bethesda he said, ‘‘Sin no 
more, lest a worse thing come unto thee’’ (John 5:14). To 
the woman taken in adultery he said, ‘‘Go, and sin no more’”’ 
(John 8:11). If it had been impossible for them to refrain 
from sinning such commands would have been unreasonable. 
Especially cruel and unjust would have been the threat of a 
worse affliction than the thirty-eight years of impotency if it 
were impossible for the impotent man to refrain from sinning. 


NATURE OF SALVATION 441 


The apostle Paul wag as positive as Jesus in unqualifiedly dis- 
allowing sin. ‘‘ Awake to righteousness, and sin not’’ (1 Cor. 
15:34). Peter also taught likewise. ‘‘Christ also suffered for 
us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who 
did no sin’’ (1 Pet. 2:21, 22). That Christ did no sin is com- 
monly admitted by Christians. If we follow in his steps we 
shall likewise do no sin. We should follow in his steps. He 
gave us an example of holy living for our imitation. The words 
of this text constitute a positive requirement of holy living by 
us. Also the apostle John taught likewise. ‘‘These things write 
TI unto you, that ye sin not’’ (1 John 2:1). Surely this emi- 
nent apostle was not trying to accomplish the impossible in his 
writing. ‘‘He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also 
so to walk, even as he walked’’ (v. 6). Ought implies obligation. 
But we are not obligated to do the impossible. Therefore, it is 
possible to live a holy life as did Christ. 

The Scriptures teach that those who are regenerated do not 
commit sin. ‘‘ Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.’’ 
‘Tf the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free in- 
deed’’ (John 8:34, 36). Here Jesus taught that through his 
power men might be freed from the necessity of committing 
sin, and that those who do commit sin are servants of sin rather 
than servants of God. Similar in meaning to these words of 
Jesus is the teaching of Paul in the sixth chapter of Romans. 
In the fifth chapter the benefits of justification by faith are 
described. In the sixth verse of the sixth chapter Paul states 
that ‘‘our old man,’’ the ‘‘body of sin,’’ or sinful nature is 
destroyed ‘‘that henceforth we should not serve sin.’’ Because 
of the power over depravity he says, ‘‘Let not sin therefore 
reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts 
thereof’’ (v. 12). ‘‘For sin shall not have dominion over you”’ 
(v. 14). ‘‘Ye were the servants of sin. ... Being then made 
free (vs. 17, 18). ‘‘But now being made free from sin, and 
become servants of God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and 
the end everlasting life’’ (v. 22). 

The apostle John even more definitely affirms Christians do 
not sin. ‘‘Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not’’ (1 John 3: 
6). ‘* Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his 
seed remaineth in him: and he can not sin, because he is born of 
God’”’ (v. 9). ‘‘We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth 


442 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


not’’ (1 John 5:18). These statements are clear. Through 
the change of heart, called the new birth, men are enabled to 
refrain from sinning, and those who are born again do refrain 
from it. It is their disposition to live holy because they have 
that union with God here represented. 

Not only do the Scriptures teach that the regenerated do 
not sin, but they definitely declare that all who sin are not 
children of God. ‘‘He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not 
his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him’”’ (1 
John 2:4). ‘‘Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither 
known him’’ (1 John 3:6). ‘‘He that committeth sin is of 
the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this 
purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy 
the works of the devil’’ (v. 8). The sense of these texts is un- 
mistakable. Those who commit sin are not Christians. ‘‘In 
this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the 
devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God’’ (v. 10). 
Here the inspired writer represents holiness of life as the dis- 
tinguishing mark between Christians and the children of the 
devil. ‘‘The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared 
to all men, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly 
lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this pres- 
ent world’’ (Titus 2:11). 

2. Definitive Sense of Sin.—A lack of clear definition of terms 
has often led to controversy and misunderstanding in doctrinal 
statements. Evidently this is the reason for much of the differ- 
ence of views regarding the possibility of a sinless life. Some 
truly devout persons because of past teaching contend that all 
men sin, and yet there is reason to believe that they themselves 
keep their own consciences pure. Doubtless their attitude in 
this is due to a failure on their part clearly to distinguish be- 
tween sin in the absolute sense and sin in the imputed sense. 

By sin in the absolute sense we mean the violation of God’s 
law. For ‘‘sin is the transgression of the law.’’ It is in this 
sense a violation of God’s written commandments or of some 
moral principle, and the right or wrong of an action depends 
upon its relations to the will of God rather than upon the in- 
tention of him who performs it. God’s law disallows the making 
of false statements, yet through lack of knowledge of the facts 
any one but Omniscience may make a statement that may after- 


NATURE OF SALVATION 443 


ward be found to be false. It is always wrong to take that which 
belongs to another, yet all are liable unknowingly to keep money 
belonging to another through error in changing money or by 
failure to remember to pay a debt. Again, because of our hu- 
man limitations we may fail to feed the starving, to encourage 
the distressed, to give money for the spreading of the gospel, or 
to point a lost soul to Christ. If we only knew, we would do 
better in many of these things. Every man fails in some of 
these or similar things every day. If sin is to be defined to 
mean only the violation of the absolute standard of moral right, 
then without doubt all sin every day. Because of thus regard- 
ing these mistakes and failings resulting from human lmita- 
tions aS sin, many true Christians have assumed that they sin 
more or less every day, while their hearts and motives are pure. 

But aceording to the New Testament this is not the full 
definition of sin. The Old Testament describes a sin of ignor- 
ance, but the New Testament teaches that when there is no law, 
there is no transgression (Rom. 4:15). In other words, only 
as one knows he is doing sin against God, does God impute it to 
him as sin. Reason also agrees with this. It would be unjust 
to punish one for that which he did unknowingly or for which 
he is not responsible. Moral principles allow that one is punish- 
able only to the extent he is responsible. His guilt or innocence 
depends upon his intentions. If he does an act right in itself, 
whatever may be his motive the natural good results of that act 
will accrue to him, but his motive will determine the judicial 
results. Also if one does an act wrong in itself natural evil 
results follow, whatever was his motive, but the judicial results 
are determined in the light of his motive. If he was constrained 
in any way to do the wrong act so it was not by his own choice, 
or if he did not and could not know it was wrong, then he has 
not sinned and deserves no punishment. One commits sin only 
as he acts intelligently and intentionally. 

Then a violation of the law through ignorance is not sin in 
the true or New Testament sense. Moreover, it is improper and 
confusing to teach that we sin more or less every day because 
of those unintentional violations of God’s law. Neither need 
one pray for forgiveness of these acts for which he is not re- 
sponsible. As the term is used in the New Testament, sin is an 
intentional violation of what one understands to be the will of 


444 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


God. It is absurd to suppose a Just God imputes guilt to one 
for that over which he has no power and therefore for which 
he is not responsible. This view is in perfect accord with the 
many injunctions of the Scriptures against sinning. 

3. Causes Leading to a Denial of Holy Living.—Not a few pro- 
fessed Christians deny the possibility of one’s being saved from 
sinning in this life. Neither do these consist wholly of the care- 
less and hypocritical who would thus excuse their own sinful 
indulgence, but some apparently devout, earnest Christians seem 
sincerely to believe, in spite of all the Bible states to the con- 
trary, that all must sin. The prevalence of this theory that all 
must sin is a result of various causes. Not the least of these is 
the wrong definition of sin previously discussed. 

The theory that Christians commit sin is not a modern one. 
It has passed down through the centuries from generation to 
generation and from creed to creed for hundreds of years. It 
ean be traced in church history at least as far back as the early 
part of the third century. In his church history Williston Walker 
has referred to worldliness in the church as ‘‘a tendency much 
inereased by its rapid growth from heathen converts between 
202 and 250. As common Christian practise became less strenu- 
ous, however, asceticism grew as the ideal of the more serious. 
Too much must not be expected of common Christians.’’ As 
Christianity grew, it became popular, and this popularity re- 
sulted in many heathen becoming nominally Christian without 
the vital power of real Christianity to lift them above sin. 
Therefore they brought down their doctrinal standard on this 
point to accord with their experience. They decided that the 
ordinary Christian should not be expected to refrain from sin- 
ning. This view has persisted in the minds of professed Chris- 
tians and in their creeds until the present time. 

Doubtless the doctrine of baptismal regeneration hag con- 
tributed much to the idea that Christians must commit sin. 
Men’s trust in baptism as a means of regeneration has resulted 
in their failure to obtain true regeneration of heart by the Holy 
Spirit. Without the new heart they find themselves powerless 
to live free from sin. As the prophet has said, ‘‘A new heart 
also will I give you... and cause you to walk in my statutes, 
and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them’’ (Ezek. 36: 26, 
27). A lack of ability to live a sinless life by many who assume 


NATURE OF SALVATION 445 


they are Christians, but who are not truly such, has been fruit- 
ful of the error that Christians are necessarily subject to com- 
mitting sin. 

But a cause, more important than those already mentioned, 
for the prevalence of the theory that Christians commit sin, 
was the erroneous teaching given prominence by Augustine and 
Calvin that man through Adam’s sin is totally depraved and 
incapable of choosing in moral actions. Another cause is the 
antinomian theory of a certain class of Calvinists, that Christ 
obeyed the law of God in our stead and therefore the merit of 
his obedience is imputed to us so obedience on our part is un- 
necessary. Such unscriptural teaching was given a large place 
in Romish theology subsequent to the fourth century, but Augus- 
tine has influenced Protestant theology in some respects even 
more than that of Rome. On the points mentioned Calvinistic 
theology has been fashioned after that of Augustine. And Cal- 
vinistic theology has determined the creeds of most of the older 
Protestant denominations. Just to the extent that one holds 
it, he usually holds that Christians can not refrain from sinning. 
The Calvinistic doctrine has been sufficiently considered in pre- 
ceding pages. 

Still another cause for the denial of the possibility of a holy 
life by Christians is the misinterpretation of certain texts of 
Seripture, which are next to be considered. 

4. Objections Considered.—Objections to the teaching that 
Christians do not commit sin for the most part have their basis 
either in the assumption of the truthfulness of certain Calvin- 
istic tenets or in a misinterpretation of certain texts that are 
supposed to teach that all men sin. The Calvinistic theories in- 
volved have been shown to be unscriptural. The Bible is evi- 
dently not self-contradictory; therefore the many plain texts 
already cited which clearly teach that Christians do not sin 
must not be disregarded by interpreting other texts to the con- 
trary. If these other texts are properly interpreted they will 
agree with the general tenor of Scripture. 

A class of texts often appealed to by objectors to the teach- 
ing of a sinless life are those statements which affirm that all 
men in their unregenerate state commit sin. ‘‘There is none 
righteous, no, not one’’ (Rom. 3:10). Here the Apostle de- 
scribes mankind as they are without Christ in their unconverted 


446 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


state. That it is not a description of the experience of Chris- 
tians is certain from the fact that in verses 11-18 the same per- 
sons are charged with the darkest sins. Also it is said of them, 
‘‘There is none that seeketh after God. ... The way of peace 
have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes.’’ 
We know Christians do seek God, have peace with him, and fear 
him. In chapter one of this epistle the Apostle shows the Gen- 
tiles are naturally sinful. In the second chapter he shows the 
Jews are likewise sinful by nature. In the third chapter he 
says, ‘‘ We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they 
are all under sin’’ (v. 9). Then he quotes the words ‘‘ There is 
none righteous, no, not one.’’ He reiterates the same truth in 
verse 23, ‘‘For all have sinned, ‘and come short of the glory of 
God.’’ The great truth here affirmed is that all men in their un- 
saved condition are naturally given to sinning, whether they be 
Jews or Gentiles. This is clear from the context. Another text, 
‘‘There is none good but one, that is, God’’ (Matt. 19:17), is 
likewise an affirmation that man is good only as God makes him 
good. It is said of Barnabas that he was a ‘‘good man’’ (Acts 
11: 24). 

Another class of texts cited by objectors are those which 
declare none lived without sinning in the period preceding the 
coming of Christ. Examples are as follows: ‘‘There is no man 
that sinneth not’’ (1 Kings 8:46). ‘‘There is not a just man 
upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not’’ (Keel. 7:20). 
These texts were true of men in Solomon’s day when they were 
given. But they were written a thousand years before it was 
said of Jesus by the angel, “‘ He shall save his people from their 
sins’’ (Matt. 1:21). Long after the death of Solomon the prophet 
Ezekiel, looking forward to the coming of Christ, spoke the word 
of the Lord as follows: ‘‘Then will I sprinkle clean water upon 
you.... A new heart also will I give you... and cause you to 
walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do 
them’’ (Ezek. 36: 25-27). When Christ came he began to teach 
the new birth and men began to experience it. Consequently 
they were able to live sinless lives, as is so often declared in the 
first epistle of John. But especially could none live sinless under 
_ the Mosaic law because of the sin of ignorance, of which the New 
Testament knows nothing. 

A few other texts are sometimes quoted in support of the 


NATURE OF SALVATION 447 


theory that Christians can not live without sinning. Rom. 7: 
14-25, ‘‘The evil which I would not, that I do’’ (v. 19), is 
pointed to as the experience of the apostle Paul and therefore 
it is reasoned that we can not hope to live a better life than the 
one there described. That this was Paul’s experience when seek- 
ing righteousness by the works of the law before his conversion 
is evident from the context. In preceding chapters he seeks to 
show justification is only by faith. Here he shows it can not 
be by one’s own works, because of indwelling sin. But in the 
sixth chapter he tells us that those justified by faith are no 
longer the servants of sin, but are made free from it. In the 
eighth chapter also, especially in verse 2, he tells of deliverance 
from the bondage to sinning. ‘‘The law of the Spirit of life in 
Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”’ 
It was the law of sin that caused Paul to do what he would not 
do before regenerated. When the Spirit of life came into his 
heart he was freed from the power of sin so he no longer was 
compelled to sin. That he did not sin after conversion is cer- 
tain from his own words. ‘‘Ye are witnesses, and God also, how 
holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among 
you that believe’’ (1 Thess, 2:10). 

Another text of the objector is a part of the prayer which 
Jesus gave to his disciples as a model for their praying. It 
reads, ‘‘Forgive us our sins’’ (Luke 11:4). If one has sinned 
it is proper that he should ask forgiveness. Before the king- 
dom of God was set up it was important that believers should 
pray, ‘‘Thy kingdom come.’’ But as when Christ’s kingdom 
had been established further prayer for its coming in this sense 
was superfluous, so when one’s sins have been pardoned he no 
longer needs to pray, ‘‘ Forgive us our sins.’’ Jesus said, ‘‘ After 
this manner therefore pray ye’’ (Matt. 6:9). This prayer was 
given as an example of the acceptable and edifying kind of 
prayer. It is excellent as a model of prayer, but is not intended 
for exact repetition by all Christians. Therefore it does not 
give any support to the theory that all Christians commit sin 
every day. 

Our contention is not that believers can not sin if they 
choose to do so. Certainly if they do not stedfastly resist temp- 
tation they may commit sin, but it is equally true that ‘‘he 
that is born of God sinneth not.”’ 


CHAPTER V 
ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 


Justification and regeneration have been represented in the 
preceding chapter as constituting the initial work of salvation. 
We now come to consider another aspect of salvation which is 
distinctly set forth and promised by the Scriptures as a com- 
plete sanctification. 


I. Sense of Sanctification 


1. Other Designating Terms.—The term most commonly em- 
ployed to designate this second cleansing is sanctification. This 
usage has support in the Scriptures. Other designating terms 
often used for the same idea are holiness, Christian perfection, 
Christian purity, perfect love, and the higher Christian life. 
None of these terms adequately express the idea they are used 
to represent. Probably the phrase ‘‘entire sanctification’’ is 
the most exact designation of the doctrine and has Biblical 
srounds for its usage in the words of the apostle Paul, ‘‘The 
very God of peace sanctify you wholly’’ (1 Thess. 5:23). But 
Inasmuch as no term has the specific meaning of this doctrine 
in the Scriptures the particular designation to be used is option- 
al with the individual. 

2. No One Specific Scriptural Sense.—Though the particular 
truth under consideration is of more importance than any desig- 
nating term by which it is expressed, yet confusion as to the 
sense of the term ‘‘sanctification’’ has often led to erroneous 
views concerning the doctrine. Our English word ‘‘sanctify’’ is 
from the Greek verb aytatw (hagiazo). The adjective form of 
the word, &ytos (hagios), is properly translated ‘‘sanctified, 
holy, pure, chaste, hallowed, or consecrated.’’ Sanctification, 
then, means primarily to cleanse, and also includes the idea of 
consecration. Therefore all cleansing in order to _ holiness, 
whether that cleansing be of the heart or of the life, spiritual 
or physical, of committed sins or of depravity of the nature, 
actual or ceremonial, is properly described as sanctification. It 
is doubtful whether the term has any specific or technical usage 
in the Bible as it has come to have in the minds of not a few 
people. Being a general term meaning to make clean or holy, 


it is used of various aspects of cleansing in the Bible. 
448 


ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 449 


The term ‘‘sanctification’’ is capable of being used in at 
least eight different senses in respect to experience or practise, 
and is used in most of these senses in the Bible. It may be 
used in at least four senses of the purification of the heart: 
(1) Of sanctification of the heart generally distinguishing as to 
the particular aspect of cleansing—Acts 20:32; 26:18; Rom. 
ia Oe G@ore lees) Os Ls) Heb. asd bs toed Indah wt) OF 
justification as a sanctification or cleansing from committed sins 
—Rev. 1:5; 1 John 1:7, 9; Heb. 9:14; 1:38. (8) Of regenera- 
tion, or the removal of or cleansing from the stony heart and 
the giving of the new heart—Hzek. 36: 25-27. (4) Of entire 
sanctification—John 17:17; Eph. 5:26; 1 Thess. 5:23. In all 
the foregoing senses sanctification is effected by God. Sanctifi- 
cation may be also used in four other senses, in all of which it 
is applied to works performed by man: (1) Of sanctification of 
the outward life—1 Thess. 4:7; 2 Tim. 2: 19-21; 1 Pet. 1: 14-16. 
(2) Of reverence, or sanctification by ascribing holiness to a 
person or thing—Num, 20:12; 1 Pet. 3:15. (8) Of consecra- 
tion, or sanctification by setting apart—Deut. 5:12; John 17: 
19; 10:36. (4) Of ceremonial and physical sanctification— 
Exod. 19:23; 1 Cor. 7:14; 1 Tim. 4:5. 

3. Its Sense as Here Used.—As it is used in this chapter, sanc- 
tification is a purification of men’s hearts from depravity sub- 
sequently to regeneration. It is not assumed that this is the 
only Biblical meaning of the term, but it is enough that Jesus 
and Paul should have so used it (John 17:17; 1 Thess, 5: 23). 
This is the most common designation of the doctrine of a definite 
cleansing after regeneration by its most learned and eminent 
advocates, such as John Wesley, John Fletcher, Adam Clarke, 
George Fox, Richard Watson, D. 8S. Warner, John Miley, Minor 
Raymond, Bishop Foster, and A. B. Simpson. 


II. Need of a Second Cleansing 


1. Depravity a Ground for Twofold Cleansing.—The fact of two 
forms of sin makes room for the possibility of two distinct 
cleansings from sin. In describing the nature of man resulting 
from the sin of Adam, it has been previously shown that he has 
a perverted moral nature. As a result of that derangement men 
also sin individually and are guilty. They have a double need. 
They need pardon of their own sins and restoration of their 


450 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


natures from the depraved condition. They need justification 
from guilt and sanctification of their natures. They need to be 
brought into right relations with God and have right character 
effected in themselves. It does not necessarily follow that these 
two forms of sin in men must be overcome at two different times, 
but it is certain that their distinct nature and existence does 
positively show the possibility of two separate cleansings. If, 
as the Socinian affirms, men were not depraved, then we should 
rightly reason there is no possibility of a definite cleansing sub- 
sequent to pardon. The first cleansing is not an imperfect work 
that must be finished in a subsequent effort, but both cleansings, 
justification and sanctification, are complete cleansings of that 
aspect of sin which they affect. 

2. Depravity in the Regenerated—The doctrine of sanctifica- 
tion as a second cleansing rests upon the idea that depravity 
remains either in whole or in part in those who have been truly 
regenerated. If it could be shown that regeneration accom- 
plishes a complete restoration of the moral nature from its de- 
oraved condition in such a sense that no sinful tendency re- 
mains, then there could be no place for a second cleansing. But 
it is not here assumed that the proof of remaining depravity in 
believers is necessarily proof that that depravity may be re- 
moved in this life by a second operation of divine grace. Many 
who affirm the incompleteness of the cleansing from depravity 
in regeneration emphatically deny the possibility of one’s being 
fully delivered from its power before the hour of death. 

But, on the other hand, we need not suppose that the im- 
possibility of entire sanctification is proved by the incomplete- 
ness or lack of it in regeneration. He who made man holy at 
the first is well able to effect cleansing from any moral depravity 
he has acquired. God wills to save men from all sin. Christ 
‘“‘gave himself for us, that he might’ redeem us from all ini- 
quity,’’ that we might be ‘‘pure even as he is pure.’’ There- 
fore with the proof that the regenerate person has depravity 
remaining in him, there is reason to believe he may have it 
cleansed away. If it is not so, Christ has failed to accomplish 
the complete redemption from sin which he intended to accom- 
plish. 

That depravity is not entirely cleansed away in regenera- 
tion has been the belief of most Christians. It has been said by 


ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 451 


Dr. Miley that ‘‘the opposing doctrine of entire sanctification 
in regeneration was new with Zinzendorf and wholly unknown 
before him.’’ The doctrine of remaining depravity in the re- 
generate may properly be regarded as generally accepted. The 
prevalence of this belief is well shown by its statement in many 
of the church creeds. The Anglican creed reads, ‘‘And this 
infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regen- 
erated.’’ Also the Westminster creed states, ‘‘This corruption 
of nature, during this life, doth remain in them that are regen- 
erated.’’ Doubtless the statements of these creeds and the com- 
mon view of Christians on this subject are to be attributed in 
some measure to the prevalence of the idea of baptismal regen- 
eration, and of a degenerate form of regeneration. But when 
we remember that multitudes of the most devout Christians . 
truly regenerated and in nowise committed to those creeds which 
affirm depravity in believers, and altogether independent of 
traditional theology, have still stedfastly believed on the ground 
of Seripture and of their own inner experience that cleansing 
from depravity is not complete in regeneration, it is unwise 
hastily to decide the doctrine is untrue. 

Thousands of these same devout believers have testified that 
subsequently to their regeneration they were definitely cleansed 
from that remaining depravity by a second work of grace. The 
testimony of such persons has much value as corroboration of 
the Scripture teaching on this subject. But whatever value 
Christian experience may have it can not properly be regarded 
as a ground for doctrine when standing alone. This is chiefly 
due to its misinterpretation and variability in different individ- 
uals. It is known that some persons when regenerated are con- 
scious of but little of the movings of depravity in themselves. But 
this may be explained as due to the variability of the degree of 
depravity in the regenerate. If through the virtuous living of 
one’s ancestors or even through his own self-restraint one is not 
greatly deranged in his moral nature he will probably not notice 
so radical a change in his conversion, nor will he experience the 
same degree of manifestations of the remaining depravity after 
regeneration as will one more depraved. Yet the testimony of 
the many genuinely regenerated persons who have been con- 
scious of remaining depravity after conversion is still valuable 
as corroboration of the Bible teaching on the subject. 


452 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


What proof then do the Scriptures afford of remaining de- 
pravity in Christians? The doctrine is not directly stated in 
the Bible, but is rather a general assumption which is to be 
found in many places. The lack of a direct Scriptural statement 
of the doctrine, however, is no argument against its validity. 
Some doctrines, such as the new birth or justification by faith, 
are definitely and formally stated in the Bible. Others equally 
important and fundamental to religion are constantly assumed, 
but nowhere formally stated. The truths of theism, of the di- 
vine Trinity, and of moral depravity are examples of those not 
formally stated. The Bible does not ordinarily set forth truth 
formally, but rather incidentally. Formal statements of truth 
were made by the inspired writers only as the immediate oc- 
casion required. 

The fact of depravity in believers is implied in all those 
declarations of Scripture which teach a cleansing of the heart 
subsequently to regeneration. In John 15: 1-6 under the figure 
of the purging of branches of a vine, Jesus describes a cleansing 
or purging of those who have been converted. A purging of 
believers implies something in them from which to be purged, 
and inasmuch as believers are already cleansed from committed 
Sins and regenerated as a consequence of their believing, the 
purging here described must be a second cleansing. The Father 
is represented as the husbandman, Christ the vine, and men 
(v. 6), or his disciples (v. 5), branches of the vine. They are 
said to be ‘‘in’’ Christ (v. 2); and ‘‘if any man be in Christ, 
he is a new creature’’ (2 Cor. 5:17), or has been regenerated. 
This is certain. They are not, as some have wrongly supposed, ° 
merely justified and not regenerated. This is evident, not only 
from the last-mentioned text, but also because to be in Christ is 
to be in his church or kingdom, which is possible only through 
the new birth, for ‘‘except a man be born again, he can not see 
the kingdom of God’’ (John 3:38). The person described in 
the text under consideration is also one who bears fruits, which 
according to Gal. 5:19-24 is possible only to the regenerated. 
Sinners bear the fruits of the flesh, but these branches joined 
to Christ do not bear sinful fruit. 

Purge as used in this text means to cleanse. The original 
word, ynatatew (kathairo), means, according to the very best 
Greek authorities, ‘‘to cleanse,’’ and when used metaphorically, 


ENTIRE SANCTIPICATION 453 


‘‘to cleanse from sin.’’ The idea that it is a cleansing of the 
outward life instead of the heart is erroneous for the reason 
that the Scriptures constantly enjoin upon men this cleansing 
of the life; it is not done by God. It has been shown already 
that the cleansing done by God is a purification of the heart, 
but that men are exhorted to cleanse their conduct themselves 
(1 Pet. 1:14-16). It is a mistake to suppose this is a mere out- 
ward cleansing because it is represented by the purging of a 
vine. It is only an example of the inadequacy of natural figures 
perfectly to illustrate spiritual truths. Had there been an in- 
ner cleansing of a vine, Jesus would doubtless have used that 
instead of ‘“‘purge’’ to represent this cleansing to be accom- 
plished in believers that their fruitfulness might be increased. 
That this inner cleansing is referred to is also evident from 
Other parts of Jesus’ discourse and prayer recorded in John 
14-17, of which this vine figure is a part. It agrees with the 
prayer for their sanctification (John 17:17) that they might 
be kept from the evil of the world. It also agrees with the 
promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the sanctifier. Dis- 
cussion of other texts which imply sin in the regenerated by 
teaching a cleansing of believers is deferred until later. A 
need of a second cleansing is to be found, then, in the fact of 
depravity in the regenerated, which is frequently implied in 
the Scriptures, and is corroborated by the testimony of many 
intelligent and devout Christians of the consciousness of remain- 
ing depravity after regeneration. 

3. Distinction Between Regeneration and Sanctification.—The fore- 
going argument for depravity in the regenerated naturally gives 
rise to the question, if regeneration is not a removal of the 
depravity of the nature what is accomplished in it? How is it 
to be distinguished from entire sanctification? Regeneration 
has been defined in a measure already in making a distinction 
between it and justification. Justification was then shown to 
be an effecting of right relations between the sinner and God. 
Regeneration was shown to be the incoming of the power of the 
Spirit of God giving power over the reigning power of deprav- 
ity. It is entirely different from justification in its nature, 
though they are simultaneous. Though both regeneration and 
entire sanctification have to do with the practical overcoming 
of depravity, yet they also are different in their nature. ‘‘Jus- 


454 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


tification is salvation from the guilt of sin, regeneration is sal- 
vation from the reigning power of sin, and sanctification is sal- 
vation from the indwelling of sin.’’ 

The difficulty of showing the difference between regenera- 
tion and sanctification is the difficulty of accurately and fully 
defining either. This latter difficulty is due to the impossibility 
of describing exactly the nature of depravity. Like other spir- 
itual truths it can not be described in terms of the physical. 
All expressions concerning depravity, such as remnants or roots, 
and washing or eradication, are but figurative expressions and 
should not be allowed to obscure thought as to the literal facts 
involved in regeneration and sanctification. For practical pur- 
poses the distinction between regeneration and: sanctification 
may be described as follows: Regeneration is a suppression of 
depravity by the power of the Spirit of God coming into one’s 
life, but entire sanctification is the eradication or removal of 
that depravity from the nature. The work of regeneration is 
well expressed by Paul in these words, ‘‘For the law [power, as 
is the sense of ‘‘law’’ in Rom. 7:23] of the Spirit of life in 
Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law [power] of sin 
and death’’ (Rom. 8:2). Because of its effects in the life, be- 
ing regenerated may be properly described as it is in the Bible, 
as becoming ‘‘a new ereature,’’ or receiving ‘‘a new heart.’’ 

That regeneration should be what is here described is reason- 
able. It would be useless for God to forgive a sinner if he did 
not thus bring depravity into subjection to the Spirit of God. 
Because depravity exists in the regenerate, even though it no 
longer dominates the life, there is a need for a subsequent cleans- 
ing from it. Also it is not unreasonable that depravity should 
not be entirely removed at the time of the pardon of sin. Be- 
cause human nature generally is depraved and the one who sins 
was depraved in infancy before he ever sinned, it is not unrea- 
sonable that when he repents he should be pardoned and en- 
abled by the indwelling Spirit of God afterwards to keep from 
sin, rather than that he should be at once restored to Adamic 
purity. Because there are two steps down in the fall it is not 
unreasonable that there should be two steps in salvation. 


Ill. Proofs of a Second Cleansing 
What then are the proofs of a cleansing of the hearts of 


ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 455 


those who have already been regenerated? Such proofs of a 
second cleansing are ground both for remaining depravity in 
believers and for the actuality of a definite and entire cleansing 
from depravity before the hour of death. Unfortunately for 
the doctrine of sanctification, some of its supporters, in trying 
to support it with a multitude of texts, have used many that 
have no application to the subject. This has resulted in caus- 
ing some persons who found that these texts do not apply to 
fall into the error of rejecting the doctrine along with the 
erroneous proofs of it in spite of sound proofs. 

1. Sanctification for the Converted—In the prayer of Christ 
for his disciples at the close of the last supper, he prayed to the 
Father, ‘‘Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth’’ 
(John 17:17). The sanctification here desired for the disciples 
was a cleansing of the heart and not of the life. This is evident 
from the fact that it was to be done by God and not by them- 
selves. As previously shown, men are exhorted to cleanse their 
own lives; but the cleansing which God does is always repre- 
sented as being the purification of the heart. Also this sancti- 
fication was in order that they might be kept from evil (v. 15). 
It was a cause and the holy living was the effect. The mere 
fact that this sanctification is to be accomplished by the Word 
is no argument against its being a heart cleansing. We are 
also regenerated by the word of God (1 Pet. 1:23). As it is 
said, ‘‘Being born again .. . by the word of God,”’ so it is said, 
‘‘Sanctify them through thy truth.”’ 

The cleansing for which Jesus prayed could not have been 
that of initial salvation. He did not pray for sinners, ‘‘the 
world,’’ but for his disciples. They were already justified. This 
is evident from various statements found in this same chapter 
as well as in other texts. They were God’s and were obedient 
to his word (John 17:6); were not of the world (vs. 9, 14, 16); 
were kept from sin (vs. 11, 12, 15); their names were written 
in heaven, doubtless, as were those of the Seventy (Luke 10: 
20); and they had been sent out to preach the gospel. It is 
certain that they were also regenerated and that this was not 
the sanctification for which Jesus prayed. The facts already 
mentioned concerning them are fruits especially of regeneration. 
It is the new birth that makes men ‘‘not of the world,’’ and 
keeps from sin (Ezek. 36:26, 27). And these were not of the 


456 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


world and were ‘‘kept,’’ were obedient or kept the word of 
God (John 17:6). Surely these men were born again who 
were sent to preach the kingdom of God, which one ‘‘can not 
see’’ except he be born again. 

Regeneration is essential to entrance into the kingdom of 
God (John 3:3). Jesus said before this time, that since the 
days of John ‘‘the kingdom of God is preached, and every man 
presseth into it’’ (Luke 16:16). Therefore men were being 
born of God prior to the time of Jesus’ prayer. There can be 
no doubt that the apostles were among those who had been 
regenerated. That they were is certain from the Scriptures. It 
is said, ‘“Them that believe on hig name... were born... of 
God’’ (John 1:11-13). The disciples had believed, as is shown 
by the Great Confession (Matt. 16:16). Therefore they were 
born of God. Still another proof that they were regenerated 
is the fact that they were in Christ the true vine (John 15:2-4). 
Therefore they were regenerated, for ‘‘if any man be in Christ, 
he is a new creature’’ (2 Cor. 5:17). This prayer of Jesus for the 
sanctification of his disciples is proof that there is a cleansing 
of the heart for the regenerated, for he said, ‘‘Neither pray I 
for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me 
through their word’’ (John 17: 20). 

2. Sanctification for the Church—In full accord with Jesus’ 
prayer that those who are already converted should be sancti- 
fied are the words of Paul that sanctification is for the church, 
which is composed of only those who are regenerated. ‘‘ Christ 
also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might 
sanctify and cleanse it [the church] with the washing of water 
by the word’’ (Eph. 5:25, 26). Here is described a sanctifica- 
tion, not of sinners, but of the church. That this sanctification 
is not a consecration, but a cleansing of the heart, and not a 
purification of life is clear from the fact already shown that the 
sanctification of men which God effects is always a cleansing of 
the heart. Men are exhorted to cleanse their own lives, or to 
be holy. 

If the reading of the Revised Version be preferred, the 
argument for the teaching of a second cleansing by this text is 
strengthened rather than weakened. ‘‘Christ also loved the 
church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, 
having cleansed it.’’ This reading, ‘‘having cleansed,’’ igs well 


ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 457 


supported by the original word xataotoas (katharisas) the 
first aorist participle, which denotes the indefinite past tense. 
According to this reading, the church, which has already been 
cleansed, is to be sanctified. This second cleansing or sanctifica- 
tion of the church is identical with the sanctification which Jesus 
prayed his disciples might have, and also with the purging of 
the branches in the vine, Christ. 

3. An Entire Sanctification——The church at Thessalonica was 
established by the apostle Paul during his second missionary 
journey. But very soon he was compelled by persecution to 
go elsewhere. Not long after his departure he wrote his first 
epistle to them from Corinth, in the closing part of which he 
said, ‘‘The very God of peace sanctify you wholly [entirely] ; 
and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be pre- 
served blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ’’ 
(1 Thess. 5:23). The sanctification here taught is to be done 
by God; therefore it is a cleansing of the heart rather than of 
the conduct. Those for whom Paul desired it were not sinners, 
but a church ‘‘in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ 
(1 Thess. 1:1). They were ‘‘brethren’’ (v. 4); and, judged 
from the frequent commendations in the epistle, evidently a 
very spiritual church. Yet they were not wholly sanctified. 
The implication is that they were pure in some degree or in 
some sense. Their need for entire sanctification is that they 
may be kept ‘‘blameless,’’? which is identical with the disciples 
being kept from the evil of the world, in order to which sanc- 
tification was important, according to the prayer of Christ. 

4. Coincident with the Holy Spirit Baptism.— Denial of a definite 
work of salvation subsequent to conversion implies a rejection, 
not only of a second cleansing, but also of the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit after regeneration. In no place in the Bible is the 
baptism by the Holy Spirit represented ag occurring at the 
time of conversion. When Jesus promised him to the disciples 
he said of him, ‘‘Whom the world can not receive’’ (John 14: 
17). It has been previously shown that the apostles were con- 
verted before Pentecost, at which time they were all baptized 
by the Holy Spirit. When Philip preached at Samaria many 
believed and were baptized. Later when Peter and John at 
Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, 
they went there and laid their hands upon them and the Samar- 


458 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


itans received the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:5-17). Paul found cer- 
tain ‘‘disciples’’ at Ephesus who had ‘‘believed’’ (Acts 19:1, 
2). Even though he recognized them as believers and disciples, 
yet he laid his hands upon them and they received the Holy 
Ghost (v. 6). The apostle Paul himself was converted on the 
road to Damascus and was there called to preach (Acts 26: 18) ; 
he prayed (Acts 9:11); he was a ‘‘chosen vessel’’ (v. 15) ; 
and soon after was called ‘‘Brother Saul’’ by Ananias (v. 17). 
It was after all this that he was baptized with the Holy Spirit. 
Before Peter came to him, Cornelius was said to be a devout 
man who feared God and prayed always (Acts 10:2). His 
prayers were heard (v. 4), and he was a “‘just man’’ (v. 22). 
Evidently he was a converted man. Yet when Peter came and 
preached to him he received the Holy Spirit. In all these in- 
stances the baptism of the Holy Spirit was subsequent to con- 
version. 

Peter was called in question for preaching to Cornelius, who 
was a Gentile. In his defense he said, ‘‘God, which knoweth 
the hearts bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even 
as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, 
purifying their hearts by faith’’ (Acts 15:8, 9). The purifica- 
tion of heart to which Peter here refers evidently took place 
when he visited Cornelius. He states that God gave them the 
Spirit and purified their hearts. Doubtless that cleansing was 
that which we here designate sanctification and was subsequent 
to conversion. But the experience of Cornelius was normal in 
this respect, for Peter says God did to them ‘‘even as he did 
unto us,’’ the apostles, at Pentecost. Therefore the apostles 
received a cleansing of heart at Pentecost in harmony with 
Jesus’ prayer for their sanctification in John 17:17. 

5. Two Cleansings in Old Testament Type——The Mosaic institu- 
tions were types or prophetic similitudes of the great basic 
truths of Christianity. They did not merely happen to be 
parallel to, or to illustrate, Christian truth, but were originally 
given of God for that purpose. It is said of them, ‘‘Which are 
a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ’’ (Col. 
2:17); ‘*Which was a figure for the time then present’’ (Heb. 
9:9); ‘‘The example and shadow of heavenly things’’ (Heb. 
8:5); ‘The figures of the true’’ (Heb. 9:24): ‘‘A shadow of 
good things to come’’ (Heb. 10:1). The true work of man’s 


ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 459 


salvation through Christ was altogether worthy to be foreshown 
by the symbolic salvation of the Mosaic system. 

The tabernacle was typical. As the dwelling-place of God 
it was typical of the church of Christ, the house of God (Heb. 
8:2; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 9:9). But as a means of divine serv- 
ice and a system of sacrifice it was also typical of the work of 
salvation, or the way by which the sinner comes to God. This 
is clearly brought out by Heb. 10: 19-22. That those sacrifices 
were typical of the blood of Christ and those ceremonial cleans- 
ings of our cleansing is certain and generally admitted by be- 
lievers in the Bible. 

The Tabernacle contained two rooms—the holy place and 
the holiest place. There were two veils, one at the entrance of 
each of these rooms. Two altars were placed, one before each 
of these veils. There were two sprinklings of blood, one on 
each of these altars. What could better symbolize two distinct 
cleansings and two degrees in holiness than this twofold pre- 
sentation of blood before God to give admittance into greater 
holiness? The first altar typified justification. The washing at 
the laver typified regeneration, (Titus 3:5), and the blood 
placed on the golden altar as a sin-offering for those who had 
already been admitted to the first room because of their sym- 
bolic holiness was typical of entire sanctification or a cleansing 
subsequent to conversion. Then there is here represented two 
degrees of holiness in the church, which makes possible the sanc- 
tification of ‘‘the church’’ as described in Eph. 5: 26. 

That the second room is typical of sanctification is clear from 
Heb. 10: 19-22: ‘‘Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter 
into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, 
which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to 
say, his flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; 
let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, 
having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our 
bodies washed with pure water.’’ Here the exhortation is to 
‘‘brethren,’’ those already justified and regenerated, to go ‘‘into 
the holiest’? from the holy place where they then were. They 
were to enter it ‘‘by the blood of Jesus.’’ ‘‘Having had’’ (A. 
S. V.) their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience (justified 
at the brazen altar), and their bodies washed with pure water 
(regenerated at the laver), which admitted to the first room, 


460 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


they were urged to go on into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. 
If it be objected on the ground of Heb. 9:24 that the holiest 
place was a type of heaven, we reply, then we have here an 
exhortation to the converted to enter heaven. Such an exhorta- 
tion would be improper, for at best we can only be ready for 
heaven, which these already were; actually entering is never 
voluntary on our part. We can enter only when God wills. We 
could not enter voluntarily if we chose; therefore if heaven 
were meant in this particular text the text would be super- 
fluous and absurd. But this text evidently exhorts brethren to 
enter that which may be entered at once voluntarily, which is 
true of entire sanctification, but is not true of heaven. Heb. 
9:24 ig concerned with the act of Christ’s mediation, which 
was typified by the mediatory service of Aaron that took place 
in the holiest of the tabernacle. It is a service that is here 
represented, rather than a place. As the typical mediation was 
in God’s presence, so is the true mediation in God’s presence, 
regardless of where God is. 


IV. Nature of Entire Sanctification 


1. A Real Experience.—Any attempt accurately and fully to 
define sanctification must result in failure. No spiritual or 
mental operation can be so defined. It does not therefore fol- 
low necessarily that it is unreal because not capable of full and 
logical definition in the present state of human knowledge. It 
would be as unreasonable to reject its reality because of its 
mystery as to reject the reality of regeneration on the same 
ground which is equally indefinable in full. But the Scriptures 
and experience testify to the reality of both of them. Many 
other facts which are mysteries and inexplainable to human 
wisdom as to their nature are commonly believed. Mysteries 
surround us on every hand in physical nature. Also the mind 
itself as to its nature as well as to its phenomena is involved 
in mystery. We know we think, but we do not know how we 
think. It is as unreasonable to reject sanctification because of 
its mystery as it would be to deny the reality of depravity itself 
because of mystery in connection with it. Full knowledge of 
the nature of sanctification is not necessary to the benefits of 
the experience, as it is not necessary that one understand his 
digestive processes to be benefited by the food he eats, or to be 


ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 461 


informed concerning the mechanism of a telephone and the na- 
ture of electricity in order to have the advantages of communi- 
cation by that means. 

But some truths can be known by experience which can be 
known in no other way. A man born blind can have no true 
comprehension of color, even though one may try earnestly to 
explain it to him. He has nothing in his experience with which 
to compare it. So also a practical idea of the nature of entire 
sanctification ig possible only to him who has the experience. 
Also one can know the nature of conversion only by being con- 
verted. Yet as many who have been truly converted can not 
explain regeneration, so many who have been sanctified are 
unable to define sanctification. As the most satisfactory defini- 
tion of regeneration is a description of its effects, so the descrip- 
tion of the effects of sanctification are of special importance. 

2. Effects of Sanctification—A distinction was previously 
made between depravity and the effect of it, which is a tendency 
to sin. Now we should distinguish between sanctification and 
the effects of it. Sanctification may be described as being a 
cleansing from the depravity of the nature; or to state it more 
literally, it is a restoration of the nature from its deranged 
condition. If depravity is largely a perversion of the affections, 
then sanctification must be principally a restoration of them. The 
effects of sanctification are the absence of the effects of depravity. 
That the second cleansing taught in the Scriptures is a restora- 
tion from depravity is evident from the fact that this is accord- 
ing to man’s need. In the very nature of the case it is i1m- 
possible that a cleansing of the heart subsequent to justification 
could be a cleansing from those sins which are already forgiven. 

Sanctification does not effect an eradication of any essential 
qualities of human nature as originally constituted, but only of 
the evil dispositions resulting from its perversion. When God 
ereated man he endowed him with a certain natural pride, com- 
monly known as self-respect, which is very desirable in that it 
causes one to seek to be agreeable and pleasing to his fellow 
men. This natural pride is perverted through moral depravity 
to such an extent that men in their sinful condition desire, not 
only to be well thought of by their fellows, but to be esteemed 
more highly than any one else. They come to have an unduly 
exalted estimation of themselves. This perversion of a natural 


462 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


‘and proper disposition is the result of selfishness and is sinful. 
Sanctification results simply in the restoration to the natural 
condition where one is free from sinful pride, yet is possessed 
of a proper self-respect. 

A sense of justice is also natural to man as created. Justice 
is an attribute of God and is essential to a moral being. This 
sense of justice causes one to feel a natural anger, indignation, 
or displeasure at an act of injustice. Every good person feels 
it when he beholds the sight of oppression of the helpless. Jesus 
felt it and God often felt it with Israel. Depravity results in 
a derangement of this natural anger so that it becomes vindic- 
tive, selfish—it becomes hatred. This leads one to sinful acts. 
Sanctification does not remove-from one that sense of justice 
nor what is included in it, but does restore it from the depraved 
condition. Other natural qualities such as acquisitiveness, 
humor, and the desire for pleasure are deranged through sin, 
but restored in sanctification. 

It is not always possible to distinguish clearly between emo- 
tions and manifestations of depravity and of essential human 
nature. The effects of sanctification are not uniform in all 
men, partly for the reason that the degree of the depravity is 
not the same in all. The personal experience of sanctification 
of no particular person can be cited as an example of what the 
effects of sanctification will be in all others. Sanctification does 
not destroy the essential qualities of human nature, does not 
remove all human imperfections, does not make one infallible, 
nor save one from the possibility of committing sin. Sanctifiea- 
tion is identical with Adamic perfection as to heart purity, but 
in various other respects Adamic perfection is not attained 
until glorification at the resurrection. This must be true in re- 
gard to the physical and mental natures. It is consistent with 
human probation under present conditions that we should not 
in all respects be brought to the condition of man in his original 
estate in this life. 

3. A Definite Work—A question of special importance in 
determining what is the nature of sanctification is whether it 
is a definite, instantaneous work of grace or whether it is a 
gradual growth in holiness, of the nature of growth in grace. 
What has been said about it in preceding chapters assumes it 
is a definite, instantaneous purification. The proof that it is a 


ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 463 


second cleansing is proof also that it is a definite cleansing. 
However, it seems important that more formal proof should be 
given on this point. 

The very nature of the work of sanctification, as we have 
set it forth, is opposed to the idea of gradual cleansing. L[vi- 
dently there is a growth in grace after conversion that may be 
called a sanctification of the life, but this is not to be confused 
with the instantaneous heart cleansing called sanctification. If 
depravity of the moral nature may be described as being like 
that in the nature of a lion which causes it to differ from the 
lamb, then the distinction between a growth into holiness and 
a definite cleansing of the heart from depravity might well be 
represented by the difference between taming the ferocious na- 
ture of the lion and miraculously converting a lion nature into 
that of a docile lamb. 

Sanctification is accomplished by the blood of Christ as is 
regeneration. Few would affirm regeneration is a gradual pro- 
eess. The ‘‘purging’’ of John 15:1-6 is a definite work. Its 
purpose is that those already in Christ and who are bearing 
the fruit should bear more fruit. According to this statement, 
holiness of life is the result, not the cause, of holiness of heart. 
The typical sanctification, the application of the blood on the 
golden altar, was a definite work, as was also the passing from 
the holy place to the most holy place of the tabernacle. Also 
the Scriptures represent some as being already sanctified. Very 
few, if any, of those who hold sanctification is attained by a 
process of growth ever believe themselves to have attained the 
experience. Herein the fruits of their theory differ from the 
Bible teaching of sanctification. 

We do not say that God might not if he so desired and be- 
cause of special conditions sanctify one by a gradual process, 
or that he might not wholly sanctify one at the time of justifica- 
tion, but it is clear that such is not the normal method; nor is 
such taught in the Scriptures, and it is better that we teach 
what is taught in the Bible than what is not taught there. 


V. Attainment of Sanctification 
1. Attainable in This Life—For the attainment of sanctifica- 
tion it is of importance that one know it is possible during this 
life. This point is denied by the creeds of some denominations. 


464 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


The point to be proved here is not the need of a second work, 
nor the possibility of entire sanctification, but that sanctification 
is attainable before the hour of death. That it is attainable 
during this life is evident from several Scripture statements 
already cited. Jesus prayed for his disciples that they might be 
sanctified in order that they might be kept from the evil. There- 
fore he recognized it as attainable in life. Likewise the apostle 
Paul prayed for the entire sanctification of the Thessalonians 
that they might be preserved. Some were sanctified to whom 
epistles were addressed. Of these the inspired writer said, ‘‘He 
hath perfected forever them that are sanctified’’ (Heb. 10:14). 

Sanctification is not only attainable in this life, but its attain- 
ment by every believer is important. Jesus prayed for the sanc- 
tification of his disciples at the solemn hour when he was ready 
to go out from the last supper to Gethsemane, betrayal, and 
death. It was worthy of a chief place in the last prayer for 
his disciples. The apostles also give it an important place. 
Paul at once inquired, when he went to Ephesus and found 
twelve disciples, if they had yet received the Holy Ghost. 

2. Conditions for Sanctification—The conditions for sanctifi- 
cation are not formally stated in the Scriptures, but they may 
be known from incidental statements. They are briefly as fol- 
lows: The apostles received it by prayer (Acts 2). The Samar- 
itans and the Ephesians by the prayers and laying on of the 
hands of the others (Acts 8:15, 17; 19:6). A dedication of 
ourselves is necessary in the very nature of the case, however, 
to this cleansing and infilling’ of the Spirit, as in the ceremonial 
sanctification of the Old Testament. Consecration is important 
for sanctification, but this is not to be confused with the for- 
saking of all that Jesus set forth as a requisite to discipleship. 
It is rather a dedication to be a temple for the Holy Spirit’s 
indwelling. 

Too often sanctification is represented as an experience very 
difficult of attainment, which may be reached only after long 
praying and seeking, and which many may never be able to 
attain. The Bible rather represents it as for even the weakest 
of Christians. As Peter said in his Pentecostal sermon in tell- 
ing the penitent Jews of the possibility of their receiving the 
~ Holy Ghost, ‘‘For the promise is unto you, and to your children, 
and. to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God 


ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION 465 


shall eall’’ (Acts 2:39). The conditions are simple prayer and 
faith. ‘‘If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto 
your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give 
the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?’’ (Luke 10:18). 

3. Assurance of Sanctification—The evidence of one’s being 
sanctified should not be expected to be experienced by the physi- 
eal senses. <A spiritual work in the moral nature must be 
known otherwise. To reject the truth of sanctification because 
it ig not attested by the physical senses would be as unreasonable 
as to reject justification or regeneration for a similar reason. 
A spiritual operation is properly known spiritually. Assurance 
of sanctification is like assurance of the initial work of salvation, 
by the witness of the Holy Spirit and of our own spirit. The 
Bible does not affirm this of sanctification, but it does teach that 
these are the witnesses to other spiritual experiences, including 
the witness to the sin of the unsaved and to the adoption of the 
eonverted. The Spirit also similarly made known his will that 
Paul and Barnabas should go forth from Antioch as mission- 
aries. In the nature of things God’s Spirit and our spirit are 
the witnesses to sanctification. That these are the sources of 
assurance of sanctification is a fact of experience. 

The degree of clearness of the witness of the Spirit of God 
to sanctification in one’s consciousness varies as in the assurance 
of adoption. Likewise as in the assurance of adoption the wit- 
ness of our own spirit varies with different persons and for a 
similar reason. Because some are not conscious of a definite 
assurance or have doubts about their having received the ex- 
perience is no more valid ground for the rejection of the reality 
of sanctification than similar doubts about conversion would be 
for the denial of the reality of that experience. The second 
cleansing is as definite as is conversion and one may be equally 
assured of his possessing the experience. 


CHAPTER VI 
BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT 


The personality of the Holy Spirit has been sufficiently dis- 
cussed under theology proper. Now we are to inquire concern- 
ing the baptism with the Holy Spirit and what 1t comprehends. 
Because it is an aspect of salvation the consideration of this 
subject is appropriate under soteriology. 


I. Nature of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit 

1. Expressions Representative of It—The most common for- 
mula for representing that special incoming to believers of the 
Spirit of God and of his mighty working in and through them 
is ‘‘baptized with the Holy Ghost.’’ It was first used by John 
the Baptist concerning the work of the coming of Christ. ‘‘I 
indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that 
cometh after me is mightier than I, ... he shall baptize you 
with the Holy Ghost, and with fire’’ (Matt. 3:11). The words 
‘‘and with fire’’ are not to be understood to teach another bap- 
tism than that with the Holy Spirit. This ‘‘with’’ before fire 
is not found in the Greek text, which is indicated by its being 
printed in italics. The words ‘‘and fire’’ indicate a more 
thorough cleansing than that effected by John’s baptism. This 
coming of the Holy Spirit is called a baptism because of the 
greatness of his working and power. Old Testament prophets 
received him as a spirit of prophecy temporarily, but had only 
a limited degree of his working. In the Christian dispensation 
believers have his presence and manifestations in a much greater 
measure, so they may be truly said to be overwhelmed or bap- 
tized with him. The significance of this expression is also 
shown by the words of Jesus, ‘‘For John truly baptized with 
water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many 
days hence’’ (Acts 1:5). 

The foregoing words of John and Jesus evidently refer to 
the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit. It is said of the 
disciples on that occasion, ‘‘ And they were all filled with the Holy 
Ghost’’ (Acts 2:4). To be filled with the Holy Spirit is to be 
baptized with him. In the account of Peter’s preaching to Cor- 
nelius it is said, ‘‘While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy 


Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the 
466 


BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT 467 


circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came 
with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the 
gift of the Holy Ghost’’ (Acts 10: 44, 45). That the expressions 
‘‘Holy Ghost fell,’’ ‘‘the gift of the Holy Ghost,’’ and ‘‘filled 
with the Holy Ghost’’ are identical with ‘‘baptized with the 
Holy Ghost’’ is shown by the words of Peter later when he ident- 
ified that received by Cornelius with that received by the 
apostles at Pentecost, and both of these experiences with the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost which Jesus promised. ‘‘ And as I 
began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the 
beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that 
he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be bap- 
tized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them 
the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus 
Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?’’ (Acts 11: 
15-17). 

In addition to the foregoing four expressions others are used 
of the baptism with the Holy Spirit, such as: “‘the promise of 
my Father’’ and ‘‘endued with power from on high’’ (Luke 
24:49); ‘‘receive the Holy Ghost’’ (Acts 2:38; 19: 2-6); ‘‘the 
Holy Ghost came on them’’ (Acts 19: 2-6). 

2. A Definite Experience.—The baptism of the Holy Spirit is 
a definite experience in the sense that it is a supernatural op- 
eration which God effects at a definite time. It is not a gradual 
growth or natural development in piety or spiritual power. It 
is as definite as is the experience of conversion, and one may be 
equally certain that he has received it. This is clear from the 
New Testament examples and statements concerning it. Jesus 
told the apostles to tarry at Jerusalem and not to undertake the 
work of evangelization to which he had commissioned them until 
they were endued with power by the baptism with the Holy Spir- 
it. Jesus evidently regarded this baptism as an experience so 
definite that they would know certainly when they received it. 
Paul also wrote and spoke of it as an experience which men 
knew they had or had not. The apostles received the experience 
definitely on the day of Pentecost. The Samaritan believers re- 
ceived it when Peter and John laid their hands upon them. 
Cornelius received it while Peter preached to him. The twelve 
disciples at Ephesus received it at the time Paul’s hands were 
laid upon them. 


468 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


3. Distinct from Regeneration —The Holy Spirit baptism is, 
like entire sanctification, distinct from and subsequent to the 
work of regeneration. And as Justification and regeneration are 
distinct in nature yet simultaneous ag to occurrence, so entire 
sanctification and the baptism with the Holy Ghost are distinet 
in their nature but take place at the same time. That the bap- 
tism with the Spirit is subsequent to and not at the time of con- 
version is evident from a casual reading of the Scriptures. The 
citation of a few texts and examples is sufficient evidence of this 
truth. 

It is certain that the apostles were baptized with the Holy 
Ghost on the day of Pentecost. While the account in the second 
chapter of Acts states that they were ‘‘filled with the Holy 
Ghost,’’ but does not state in so many words that they were 
then baptized with the Spirit, yet in Acts 11:15, 16 the latter 
expression is used of the Pentecostal outpouring. That the 
apostles were baptized with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost 
is commonly allowed even by those who deny this experience 
is distinct from conversion. The vital question, then, is were the 
apostles regenerated before Pentecost? They had believed on 
Christ (John 17:8; Matt. 16:16), and therefore had been born 
again (John 1:12, 13). Their names were written in heaven, 
as were those of the Seventy (Luke 10:20). They had been sent 
out to preach the gospel (Matt. 10:7). They were not of the 
world (John 14:17; 15:19). They kept God’s word (John 17: 
6). They were clean through the word (John 15:3), which is 
effected by ‘‘being born again ... by the word of God’’ (1 Pet. 
1:23). There is no room for any doubt as to their having been 
truly regenerated when the foregoing words were spoken, which 
was before Jesus’ crucifixion. But after his resurrection Jesus 
told them to wait at Jerusalem for the promise of the Father, 
saying, ‘‘Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many 
days hence’’ (Acts 1:5). They were converted, but their bap- 
tism with the Spirit was yet in the future. In perfect agree- 
ment with the foregoing statement are the words of Jesus telling 
them of the Comforter, ‘‘Whom the world can not recetve, be- 
cause it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him’’ 
(John 14:17). 

Neither was the experience of the apostles abnormal, for the 
disciples of Samaria also received the Holy Spirit subsequently 


BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT 469 


to their conversion. When they ‘‘believed Philip preaching the 
things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus 
Christ, they were baptized, both men and women’’ (Acts 8:12). 
It is incredible that this Spirit-commissioned evangelist, who 
was as definitely led and used of God ag were any of the apostles, 
made the blunder of baptizing a large company of sinners. No 
such thing is intimated by the Sacred Record. Evidently they 
were regenerated as a result of their faith in Philip’s preaching. 
In consequence of that, Philip baptized them. When the apos- 
tles at Jerusalem heard of the converts at Samaria they sent 
Peter and John to them. When Peter and John had reached 
Samaria and laid their hands upon them, the new disciples re- 
ceived the Holy Ghost. They were converted under the ministry 
of Philip, but they received the baptism with the Holy Spirit 
under the ministry of Peter and John a considerable time later. 

The twelve disciples whom Paul found upon his arrival at 
Ephesus had not yet received the Holy Ghost. Yet they had 
‘“believed’’ (Acts 19:2), and were “‘disciples’’ (v.1). Through 
che laying on of Paul’s hands the Holy Spirit came on them 
(v. 6). Ag was shown in the preceding chapter, the apostle 
Paul and Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit 
after conversion. No example can be found in all the New Tes- 
tament in which an unconverted person received the baptism of 
the Holy Spirit at the time of regeneration. 

‘Yet in some sense the Spirit of God is with every regenerate 
person before he is ‘‘baptized’’ with the Spirit. When he prom- 
ised the Comforter Jesus said, ‘‘He dwelleth with you, and shall 
be in you’’ (John 14:17). Also the apostle Paul said, ‘‘But ye 
are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of 
God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of 
Christ, he is none of his’? (Rom. 8:9). But these texts are not 
contradictory to those already cited. In the first text here 
quoted Jesus seems to make a distinction between the relation 
of the Spirit before and after conversion by the prepositions 
‘‘with’’ and ‘‘in.’? Paul, however, makes no such distinctions. 
Every Christian has the Holy Spirit in him, but this is not say- 
ing every believer has the baptism with the Spirit. One may have 
the Spirit as a regenerating power and yet not have that great 
measure of his working that is implied in the baptism with the 
Spirit. The Spirit of God is omnipresent in his power to work. 


470 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


He is with the sinner to convict of sin, with the justified person 
to keep him, and with those baptized with him as a mighty work- 
ing force for the advancement of the kingdom of Christ, as a 
sanctifier, and as a comforter. The two texts here under consider- 
ation can be harmonized with the clear Bible teaching and ex- 
amples of the baptism of the Holy Spirit subsequent to regener- 
ation only by regarding the distinction between one’s having the 
Holy Spirit and his having the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Ev- 
idently God’s Word does not flatly contradict itself. Therefore 
the distinction here made is correct. 

4. Results of the Baptism with the Spirit—To receive the Holy 
Spirit is to receive his power and working. The baptism with the 
Holy Spirit is an enduement of special power and a special 
manifestation of divine power in and through the person bap- 
tized as a consequence of the establishment of a new relation to 
the Holy Ghost. The operation at the time of the Holy Spirit 
baptism has a double aspect. It is both subjective and object- 
ive, or it is a working in us and also a working through us. To 
exclude either of these two phases of his operation from our 
thinking of the Holy Spirit baptism is to hold a one-sided view. 

The work effected in us by the baptism of the Spirit or the 
subjective results are especially entire cleansing from depravity, 
comfort, guidance, and teaching. Eestatic emotions are often 
thought of as a result of the baptism with the Spirit and certain- 
ly sometimes such feelings do accompany it, as seems to have 
been the case at the Pentecostal outpouring, but there are no 
Scripture grounds for the assumption that they are the primary 
purpose of the baptism with the Spirit nor that they are the 
evidence of one’s having received the experience. Ecstasies may 
be experienced also at conversion or at other times. 

That the baptism with the Spirit results in an entire sanctifi- 
eation was shown in the preceding chapter. The cleansing as- 
pect of the experience is forcefully represented by the symbol 
fire. ‘‘He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire’’ 
(Matt. 3:11). Fire in this place implies the idea of refining, 
cleansing, and consuming. As impurities are separated from 
metals by a process of fire, so in the baptism with the Holy Spirit 
a perfect cleansing is effected. When the holy Son of God re- 
ceived the Holy Spirit it was in the form of a peaceful dove. 
But when the apostles, who were defiled with depraved natures, 


BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT 471 


were baptized with the Holy Spirit he appeared ag ‘‘cloven 
tongues like as of fire’’ (Acts 2:3). No outward manifestation 
could better represent the idea of a cleansing at the time of the 
Holy Spirit baptism than does this fiery symbol of his presence. 

The objective results of the baptism of the Spirit, or his 
work through us, consists principally in his enduing us with 
gifts and power for service in the kingdom of God. Jesus 
commanded his apostles to preach the gospel to the world, but 
first to tarry in Jerusalem until endued with power from on 
high through the coming of the Holy Spirit. Through the power 
of the Spirit received at Pentecost, Peter was able on that day 
to preach his notable sermon which resulted in the salvation of 
three thousand. The preaching of Stephen and of Paul was 
effective for the same reason. Some of the greatest soul-winners 
since the apostolic period attribute their success to their bap- 
tism with the Holy Spirit. 

5. One Baptism, but Many Fillings——The baptism with the 
Holy Ghost is also described in the Scriptures as being ‘‘filled 
with the Holy Ghost.’’ That the baptism may be a filling with 
the Spirit is certain from Acts 1:5 and Acts 2:4. Yet the 
two expressions are not always used synonymously. After one 
has been baptized with the Holy Spirit, however great may 
have been the degree of his working then, one will need to be 
filled with the Spirit again and again subsequently. These re- 
fillings with the Spirit are clearly represented in the Scriptures. 

When, after the healing of the lame man at the Gate Beau- 
tiful, Peter was brought to trial before the high priest and en- 
quiry was made as to the power by which the miracle was done, 
‘‘Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them’’ (Acts 
4:8). Peter had been filled with the Holy Ghost when bap- 
tized by the Spirit at Pentecost, but here in a time of stress 
the Spirit again comes upon him in mighty power; so it may 
properly be said he was filled with his working. Also when 
Peter and the other apostles were forbidden to preach in Jesus’ 
name and threatened, they prayed and the place was shaken 
where they were gathered ‘‘and they were all filled with the 
Holy Ghost’’ (Acts 4:31). Here all the apostles were again 
filled with the Holy Spirit. Stephen was filled with the Holy 
Ghost at his martyrdom, though it is said he was full of the 
Holy Ghost before. The apostle Paul received the Holy Ghost 


472 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


at the hands of Ananias, but he was again ‘‘filled with the 
Holy Ghost’’ when he rebuked the sorcerer (Acts 13:9). 

Such refillings of the Spirit are important to the greatest 
usefulness in Christian service. The initial filling with the 
. Holy Spirit is not enough. With each forward step in God’s 
service a new filling is needful. Those who rest content with 
that first filling which occurred ten or twenty years ago will 
be doomed to an empty and largely fruitless Christian life. We 
do not mean the Spirit frequently leaves those who have re- 
ceived him, but they need a new manifestation of his working. 
To be filled with the Spirit does not mean one receives a greater 
measure of the Spirit himself. He is a person, and if we have 
him we have him in his entirety. But we do receive a greater 
measure of his power. Those who have been much used of God 
are familiar with these special fillings. The preacher may be 
temporarily filled with the Spirit for the preaching of a ser- 
mon, or for the conducting of a revival. 

These many fillings with the Spirit can not properly be 
called rebaptisms by him. The Scriptures never so represent 
them. To call them rebaptisms of the Holy Spirit leads to con- 
fusion. The initial baptism of the Spirit is a receiving of him, 
or his coming into a new relation with us. It also includes cer- 
tain subjective operations, such as entire removal of depravity, 
which are not repeated in the many fillings. The baptism with 
the Spirit and being filled with him may occur simultaneously, 
but either may be received without the other. That frequent 
fillings may follow baptism with the Spirit has already been 
shown. One may receive the Holy Spirit without being espe- 
cially filled with his workings. Filling accompanied the bap- 
tism in the cases of the apostles, Cornelius, and the Ephesians, 
but there are no grounds for believing there was a filling in the 
baptism with the Spirit of the Samaritans and of Paul. Some 
persons today are filled with the working of the Spirit when 
they receive him, while others are not; yet these who are not 
are often filled with the Holy Ghost after they have received 
him. 

Such distinctions may at first seem to be mere useless hair- 
splitting, but in reality they are important to us if we would 
avoid confusion and doubt about our religious experiences. For 
lack of recognizing the possibility of fillings subsequent to the 


BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT 473 


baptism with the Spirit of God, Christians may fail to give 
place for these later manifestations. Also false teachers often 
take advantage of the craving for these fresh anointings by 
the Spirit and cause people to think they have never received 
him, when they have, thus causing confusion about all their 
past experience. It is a great mistake and is dangerous for 
such to throw down their Ebenezers and to begin to seek what 
has already been received. To do so is to invite deception. 


Ii. Gifts of the Spirit 

1. Nature of Charismata.—The gifts of the Spirit, or spirit- 
ual gifts, as they are designated in 1 Cor. 12:1, are technically 
called charismata. These gifts are supernatural abilities be- 
stowed upon Christians by the Spirit of God to equip them for 
the service of the church and the upbuilding of the kingdom of 
God. Various lists of these gifts are given in the Pauline 
epistles. The longest list is found in 1 Cor. 12:4-11, 28-80. 
Nine are there named as follows: wisdom, knowledge, faith, 
healing, miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, speaking in 
tongues, and interpretation of tongues. In Rom, 12: 6-8 seven 
are named: prophecy, ministering, teaching, exhortation, giving, 
ruling, and showing mercy. In Eph. 4:7-12 is a third list of 
gifts, as follows: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and 
teachers. In these three lists eighteen different gifts are named. 
Evidently none of these lists is exhaustive, and there ig good 
reason to believe that all taken together do not include all the 
cifts of the Spirit, either possible or actual. 

It is clear from the Pauline texts cited that the spiritual 
cifts form the basis for the offices in the church. For example, 
one is an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher, or ex- 
horter, not by virtue of a human appointment, but because the 
Holy Spirit has conferred upon him the gift which corresponds 
to one of these particular offices. Only as he has the gift can he 
have the office. But this is true only of those gifts which corre- 
spond to offices. Some gifts are not applicable to the exercise 
of an office. Examples of the latter class are the gifts of wis- 
dom, faith, healing, miracles, tongues, or interpretation of 
tongues. Because the number of the gifts of the Spirit must 
correspond to the needs of the church, and the number of those 
needs is variable, it follows that neither the lists of the gifts in 


474 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the Seriptures nor any we might here give should be regarded 
as exhaustive. Whatever supernatural ability the Holy Spirit 
may give to any person to fulfil a needed function in the church 
may properly be called a charism. 

As is true of many other spiritual realities, the nature of 
spiritual gifts is not capable of full logical definition in the 
present state of human knowledge. Certainly they are not to 
be regarded as mere natural abilities. Such a view is excluded 
by the designation ‘‘gifts of the Spirit.’’ They are supernatural, 
but evidently they usually have an intimate relation to natural 
human abilities. But what is their relation to natural powers? 
Probably not always, but usually, spiritual gifts are bestowed 
in conformity with one’s natural capabilities. They are given, 
as were the talents in the parable of Jesus, ‘‘to every man 
according to his several ability,’’ both as to kind and number. 
Ordinarily God works with human instruments rather than in- 
dependently of them. In the exercise of spiritual gifts, natural 
abilities are not excluded, but included, exalted, and augmented. 
Such a view is in harmony with what we know of God’s method 
of cooperating with the human powers in other respects. In 
the writing of the Scriptures there was such an interworking 
of the human and divine that neither excluded nor restricted 
the operation of the other. Other examples of this interwork- 
ing of the human and divine may be seen in the preaching of a 
sermon under the power of the Holy Spirit, or in the government 
of the church. 

Not all supernatural works through men are to be attributed 
to the possession of spiritual gifts on the part of those persons 
instrumental in their performance. All believers have a mea- 
sure of faith, but all do not have the gift of faith. Because of 
that faith common to all Christians, any one may have an 
occasional miraculous answer to his prayers if God be pleased 
to have it so. But this does not mean such a person has the 
gift of healing or of miracles. Likewise the Spirit of God may 
come upon any preacher or other Christian on a special occasion 
and enable him to prophesy. Such manifestations are special 
and oceur only occasionally with an individual. The work of 
those who have a special spiritual gift will be characterized by 
corresponding manifestations. 

2. Not Given Alike to All.—Nothing concerning the gifts of the 


BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT 475 


Spirit is more clearly stated in the Scriptures than that all 
Christians do not possess the same gifts. More than once the 
apostle Paul discourses at length in his epistles concerning this 
fact. ‘‘For as we have many members in one body, and all 
members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one 
body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Hay- 
ing then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to 
us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the propor- 
tion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or 
he that teacheth, on teaching’’ (Rom. 12:4-7). The same gen- 
eral argument is given in the twelfth chapter of 1 Corinthians 
at greater length. There it is said one gift is given to one 
person and another gift to another, and that this distribution 
is made by the Spirit of God as he pleases. The church is 
represented as being like the human body with its many mem- 
bers, each having its own particular function to perform. So 
Christians are represented as members of the body of Christ, 
the church, and as a result of their being given different spir- 
itual gifts as performing different functions therein. One mem- 
ber can not fill the place of another, because of their having 
different gifts. 

Because all do not have the same gifts, it is certain all do 
not possess all the gifts. To appeal to the Apostle’s illustration 
again, the human body, it would be as unreasonable to affirm 
that all members of the church have all the gifts as to say that 
all members of one’s physical body have the ability to see, hear, 
taste, or smell, or that the foot is able to perform the functions 
of the hand. Paul closes the reasoning in 1 Corinthians 12 by 
asking, ‘‘Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? 
are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do 
all speak with tongues? do all interpret?’’ (vs. 29, 30). It is 
clearly implied that the answer to all of these questions is no. 
The error of assuming that all Christians have any particular 
gift or all of them is harmful. If it does not lead them to un- 
warranted presumption, it will often result in disappointment 
and doubts about their Christian experience and especially 
about their having been baptized of the Holy Spirit. 

While it is true that all do not have the same gifts, nor all 
the gifts, it is also true that every member of the body of Christ 
possesses at least one gift. ‘‘But to each one is given the mani- 


476 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


festation of the Spirit to profit withal’’ (1 Cor. 12:7, R. V.). 
The Holy Spirit divides ‘‘to every man severally as he will.’’ 
We do not have the responsibility of deciding what gift or gifts 
we should have. He who sets the members in the body as it 
pleases him is properly the one to determine what gifts a par- 
ticular person should possess. One person may possess several 
different gifts, as did the apostle Paul. 

3. When Spiritual Gifts May Be Received—M ay the gifts of 
the Spirit be received only at the time of the baptism by the 
Holy Spirit, or may they also be received subsequently? If 
one receives a gift when baptized with the Spirit may he later 
receive other gifts? We know the gift of tongues was given to 
the apostles, to Cornelius, and to the Ephesians when they re- 
ceived the Holy Spirit. The Ephesians also received prophecy 
at the same time. Because of these examples some have assumed 
spiritual gifts are given at no other time. But a careful study 
of Paul’s teaching to the Corinthians shows spiritual gifts may 
be received subsequently. In 1 Cor. 12:18 it is stated that all 
of them had received the Holy Spirit. ‘‘And have been all 
made to drink into one Spirit.’’ Yet in the last verse of the 
chapter they are exhorted, ‘‘Covet earnestly the best gifts,’’ 
and in 14:1, ‘‘Desire spiritual gifts.’’ But if those gifts were 
given only at the time of their baptism by the Spirit, which 
time was past with them, then these exhortations were meaning- 
less. Doubtless gifts may be bestowed upon us at any time sub- 
sequent to the coming of the Holy Spirit. In the nature of 
things there is no reason why, as the Spirit of God directs us 
into new kinds of Christian service, he should not impart to 
us gifts appropriate to that work. It is especially reasonable 
to expect that one will be given suitable spiritual gifts at the 
time he is called into the work of the ministry. 


Ill. The Gift of Tongues 


Speaking in tongues, or glossolalia as it is theologically 
designated, is properly a subject for discussion under the head- 
ing of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In three important in- 
stances the Holy Spirit baptism was accompanied with speak- 
ing in tongues. Except for these instances it might well be 
treated merely as one among the several other gifts of the 
Spirit. 


BAPTISM WITH. THE HOLY SPIRIT 477 


1. Nature of New Testament Glossolalia—In Mark 16:17 is 
recorded the prediction of Jesus that one of the signs to follow 
believers would be the speaking in new tongues. The occurrence 
of this manifestation is mentioned in Acts 10: 44-46 and Acts 
19:6. It is described at length in Acts 2:1-18 and in 1 Cor- 
inthians 12-14. In no other text is so much given concerning 
the nature of speaking in tongues as in 1 Corinthians 14. An 
important difference between the Pentecostal manifestation and 
that described in the fourteenth of 1 Corinthians is that at 
Pentecost languages were spoken which were the vernacular of 
many present, while that at Corinth is represented as being un- 
intelligible to any one present (1 Cor. 14:2), not even to the 
speaker (v. 14). Definitions of the gift of tongues have con- 
flicted as they have been based upon either of these descriptions 
to the exclusion of the other. The speaking in tongues both at 
Jerusalem and at Corinth are to be regarded as a fulfilment of 
Jesus’ prediction that believers should speak with new tongues. 
Therefore, any true definition of New Testament glossolalia 
must make a place for all the facts of both of these records. 

Because of the many incorrect views concerning speaking 
in tongues a first step in showing the nature of it is to show 
what it is not. The ‘‘other tongues’’ at Pentecost certainly do 
not refer to their physical tongues, as held by Thayer, because 
in Acts 2:6, 8 they are represented as languages. They were 
not mere strange, archaic, or poetic words, as held by Baur 
and others, for the term ‘‘tongue’’ has no such use in other places 
in the Bible. Neither can these tongues properly be regarded 
as merely new interpretations of the Old Testament prophecies, 
for the Bible represents them as languages, not interpretations. 
They ‘were not a miracle of hearing as was held by Gregory 
Nazianzus, Bede, Erasmus, and others of the present. In other 
words, though the disciples did not speak their usual language, 
yet the Holy Ghost caused their auditors to hear in their own 
languages, which were foreign to the speaker. Such a miracle 
is claimed for certain of the Roman Catholic saints and is cer- 
tainly possible, but such is not described in the text under con- 
sideration, for the miracle is said to be in the speaking, not in 
the hearing. They spoke with ‘‘other’’ tongues (v. 4), and their 
hearers heard them in their ‘‘own’’ tongues (v. 6), the languages 
in which they spoke, 


478 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


The New Testament speaking in tongues was an endowment 
by the Spirit of God with supernatural ability to speak a real 
language which the speaker had never learned and which was 
accordingly unknown to him. Unless those happened to be 
present who were acquainted with the language being spoken 
the words of the speaker were unintelligible to those present, 
which was usually the case at Corinth (1 Cor. 14:2, 5, 9). 
Even the speaker himself did not understand what he said. 
His ‘‘understanding is unfruitful’’ (v. 14). The gift of tongues 
is nowhere represented as the gift of the knowledge of a lan- 
guage, but as the gift of the ability to speak a language as the 
Spirit gives utterance (Acts 2:4). This speaking is by the 
operation of the Spirit of God, who directs the speaker’s vocal 
organs. The speaker, unless he have the gift of interpretation, 
not only is unaware of what his words mean, but if others 
should speak in the same language in which he speaks he would 
not understand them unless he were given the ability super- 
naturally. The mere absence of those who understand, either 
naturally or supernaturally, the language being spoken is no 
evidence that it is unintelligible Jargon or not a real language. 

Speaking in tongues is edifying in the public assembly if 
those present know the language spoken, as at the Pentecostal 
manifestation. If such, nor any one with the gift of interpre- 
tation, are not present to make known what is spoken, then the 
speaker should ‘‘keep silence in the church’’ and ‘‘speak to 
himself, and to God’’ (1 Cor. 14:28). Yet ‘‘he that speaketh in 
an unknown tongue edifieth himself’’ (v. 4), even though his 
understanding is not exercised. An emotional edification is 
possible in such a ease, and would naturally result from the 
experience of ecstasy in which the speaking in tongues took 
place at Pentecost and evidently at Corinth. 

2. Purpose of Speaking in Tongues.—The gift of tongues is 
not, as many have supposed, primarily for the purpose of preach- 
ing the gospel by missonaries to people speaking a foreign lan- 
guage. It is true that certain of the church fathers held this 
view, and it is alleged that Bernard, Anthony, Francis Xavier, 
and other Roman Catholic saints of the Dark Ages were under- 
stood in other tongues than those in which they spoke, or were 
able to speak, but it may well be questioned whether any such 
idea can be gathered from the statements of the Scriptures. 


BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT 479 


Doubtless God could cause tongues to be spoken for this purpose 
if he were pleased to do so, but no such purpose of it is upheld 
by the Bible. 

Several reasons may be given for believing the gift of tongues 
is not for the purpose of evangelizing. (1) Probably only 
Aramaic was necessary to enable them to speak to every person 
present at Pentecost. These, like Saul of Tarsus, Apollos of 
Alexandria, and Aquila of Rome, were devout Jews of the dis- 
persion, in all representing fifteen different countries. Yet be- 
ing Jews, probably all knew Aramaic, the language of the Jews, 
as well as the language of the particular land in which they 
dwelt. The Greek language, which had become widely spoken 
through the conquests of Alexander, would possibly be under- 
stood by all of them. If the gift of tongues had been for the 
purpose of evangelizing, then its exercise on this occasion was 
superfluous. (2) They began speaking in tongues before the 
crowd gathered, which was not necessary if the purpose was to 
evangelize. (3) Peter’s sermon, which was preached after the 
crowd had assembled as a result of the tongues manifestations, 
was not in tongues, for all could understand it, and besides it 
eould not have been in more than one tongue. It is not said 
that any preaching was done in tongues, but that the speaking 
in tongues consisted in declaring the ‘‘ wonderful works of God.”’ 
(4) Paul spoke in tongues extensively (1 Cor. 14:18), yet he 
did not know the language of the Lycaonians when they said, 
‘‘The gods are come down to us,’’ and only understood the in- 
tent of the people by their actions (Acts 14:11-18). Paul doubt- 
less spoke to them in Greek, the common language of Asia 
Minor. (5) All of the New Testament, with the possible exception 
of Matthew, was written in Greek. If this one language was 
sufficient at that time for the written gospel, why not for the 
spoken message? Greek was almost a universal language in the 
Apostolic Age. (6) The New Testament writers and apostles 
did not get their knowledge of Greek by a supernatural gift, for 
their diction is defective, containing barbarisms, localisms, and 
Hebraisms, as is to be expected in the language of those speaking 
another than their mother tongue. (7) The New Testament tells 
of no evangelizing in tongues, and reliable history tells of none 
since apostolic times. (8) From what we know of God’s deal- 
ings with men generally, it is reasonable to believe that he will 


480 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


not put a premium on indolence by supernaturally bestowing 
knowledge which men may as well acquire by natural processes. 

What then is the real purpose of speaking in tongues? Paul 
states that it is for a sign to unbelievers. But in what sense is 
it a sign? At pentecost it was the evident manifestation of 
supernatural power in this respect that was the cause of amaze- 
ment to the Jews. It is the supernatural element in it that con- 
stitutes it a sign. Its value in this respect may be illustrated in 
a measure by a similar value in other ecstatic demonstrations 
such as leaping and shouting by those especially blessed in spirit. 
Like these, speaking in tongues may convince and draw some- 
times, and in other instances people may be repelled by it. Its 
effects in this respect will depend largely upon the particular 
type of individual unbeliever or the community before which it 
is exercised. Such a sign was probably of special value at ancient 
Corinth because similar manifestations were common in the 
heathen priests there and were generally regarded as proof of 
a divine possession. But it is probable that in centers of civil- 
ization and culture in our day more rational proofs of the divine 
element in Christianity has a much stronger appeal. 

A secondary benefit that results from speaking in tongues 
is the edification of the one who speaks (1 Cor. 14:4). This 
edification is not in the nature of intellectual enlightenment, 
but in emotional experience. Though those who speak in 
tongues are edified in this exercise, yet it does not follow that 
such edification is possible only through speaking in tongues. 
Speaking in tongues is but one of several exercises by which 
one’s spirit may be similarly built up. 

3. Post-Apostolic Speaking in Tongues.—Justin Martyr, of the 
second century, mentions personal acquaintance with those 
Christians who spoke in tongues; and Ireneus, of the same 
period, speaks of ‘‘many brethren in the church who... through 
the Spirit speak all kinds of languages,’’ probably referring to 
the instances among the Montanists. The Waldenses and Al- 
bigenses of the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries, those much 
persecuted, but devout and earnest opposers of papal error, are 
said to have had many manifestations of speaking in tongues 
among them. The Huguenots, of France, in the seventeenth 
century had very remarkable instances of speaking in tongues 
among them. As much might be said of the followers of Edward 


BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT 481 


Irving, in London, in the early part of the nineteenth century. 
Also instances are claimed among the Franciscans, the Jansen- 
ites, the early Quakers, in the Irish revivals of 1859, and the 
great Welsh revivals of 1904. Also many other examples of 
speaking in tongues are alleged to have taken place in the last 
century in America and Europe. The ‘‘modern tongues move- 
ment’’ first began to attract attention in Los Angeles, Cal., in 
1906. 

If the question be asked, Are all these manifestations to be 
attributed to the Spirit of God? the reply must be in the nega- 
tive. This is allowed even by those who profess to speak in 
tongues. Our knowledge of the nature of some of these manifes- 
tations is too meager to make possible an intelligent opinion 
to the source of them. 

The possible sources of speaking in tongues are three: (1) 
Divine, (2) Satanic, (3) Human. That the Spirit of God may 
speak through those whom he possesses is not difficult for belief 
by those who believe the Bible is God’s Word. That a demon 
ean speak through those he possesses is evident from the words 
spoken through the Gadarene demoniac to Jesus, ‘‘What have I 
to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure 
thee by God, that thou torment me not? For he said unto him, 
Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit’? (Mark 5:7, 8). See 
also verse 9. Here the demon spirit in the man used the vocal 
organs of the latter to speak to Jesus. Evidently demons can 
speak through men as well in one language as in another. Prob- 
ably it was to such speaking in tongues that Paul alluded when 
he said, ‘‘No man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus 
accursed’’ (1 Cor. 12:3). A psychological ground may be 
found in human nature for speaking in tongues. Knowledge 
once gained by the mind is never lost, it is said, even though it 
is not always possible to recollect it. But in moments of excite- 
ment an abnormal awakening of the memory may occur So one 
may be able to repeat words and even long passages he has 
heard in either his own or a foreign language. This abnormal 
awakening may also occur in times of danger or illness. Cole- 
ridge tells of an uneducated servant girl, who when ill with 
fever, in her delirium repeated long passages verbatim from the 
Hebrew, Greek, and Latin classics. It was later discovered she 
had heard these passages read aloud by an aged minister in 


482 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


whose home she had been formerly employed. Likewise one in 
a state of religious frenzy may thus be able to repeat foreign 
words and phrases which he has heard, but of which he does 
not know the meaning. 

4. Not the Evidence of the Holy Spirit Baptism.—Two errors in 
doctrinal teaching have been characteristic of nearly all factions 
of the ‘‘modern tongues movement.’’ First, they affirm that, all 
who receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues 
as the evidence. Second, it is held that. the Scriptures make a 
difference between the gift of tongues and speaking in tongues, 
or that one may speak in tongues without. possessing the gift. 
These two theories are fundamental to the ‘‘modern tongues 
movement’’ and give it its character. If one believes these two 
doctrines and is conscientious, he will feel obligated to seek until 
he speaks in tongues, however long a time that may. be. The 
belief of them tends to exalt speaking in tongues above every- 
thing else. 

We do not hesitate to say there is not a single text of Serip- 
ture which teaches that speaking in tongues always follows the 
baptism by the Holy Spirit. Not one of the apostles or inspired 
writers ever taught it, and not one of the world’s great soul- 
winners ever taught it. The majority of the greatest. and most 
useful preachers of the Christian era have not spoken in tongues; 
and it is unreasonable to think that these special instruments 
of God, who themselves believed they had received the baptism 
of the Spirit, were deceived, and to suppose many whose lives 
have been utterly fruitless have received him merely because 
they are supposed to speak in tongues. The fact that speaking 
in tongues may result from demon possession or may be properly 
attributed to human causes is proof that it can not be a certain 
evidence of the baptism by the Spirit. It may equally as well 
be evidence of mere religious frenzy or of one’s having a devil 
as of his having the Holy Spirit. 

On only three occasions does the Bible state that speaking i in 
tongues accompanied the outpouring of the Spirit; see Acts 2: 
4; 10:45; 19:6. Of all the other converts who. received the 
Holy Ghost there is no proof that they spoke in tongues. 
Those who teach this theory on the ground of these three texts 
are guilty of the fallacy of unsound reasoning. They generalize 
on too narrow a basis, as do those who reason that because 


BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT 483 


changes are found to take place within a particular species of 
plant. or animal, therefore ‘all living species, including man 
himself, have evolved from lifeless matter. .As sound reason- 
ing repudiates the idea. of evolution as being an unproved 
theory, so it must likewise’ reject the theory that tongues are 
the evidence of the Holy Spirit baptism. . There are also reasons 
for believing tongues manifestations did not usually accompany 
the outpouring of God’s Spirit on people in apostolic times. 
The first: to speak in. tongues were the apostles at Pentecost. 
There was a special. reason for this and it was justified by the 
results. _The next who are said to have, spoken in tongues were 
Cornelius and. his household. It is reasonable that these first 
Gentiles to receive the baptism with the Spirit should. thus 
speak in tongues. Peter in speaking of this incident said,,‘‘ As 
I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at. the 
beginning.’’ If all the many thousands who had received the 
Holy, Ghost during the eight years since Pentecost had always 
received the tongues, why did Peter say, ‘‘As on us at the be- 
geinning’’?. Why could he not as well have said, ‘‘As he has 
been baptizing all since the beginning’’? . Why. should Luke 
thus point back to Pentecost if all had spoken in tongues since 
Pentecost? Evidently because, as Paul reasons in 1 Cor. 12:30, 
that all do not. speak in tongues. 

It. was prophecy, not speaking in tongues, that was predicted 
to follow the outpouring of the Spirit (Joel 2: 28), and certainly 
this is far more valuable... In.1 Cor. 14:1 Paul reasons. that 
propheey is superior to speaking in tongues. But. why should 
we suppose a man with this superior gift has not been baptized 
with the Spirit, while assuming that another has received the 
Spirit merely because he manifests the inferior gift of tongues? 
No outward manifestation is the true evidence of the baptism 
with the Holy Spirit. Only those unfamiliar with the witness 
of the Spirit need such an evidence... It is said this baptism is 
so important there must be some outward evidence. In reply 
we ask, what could be more important than the salvation of 
one’s soul? Yet conversion is not attested by a physical sign. 
Paul states that.we know. we.are saved. by the double witness 
of the Spirit. of. God and of our own spirits, which are not of 
the nature of outward signs. That the Spirit testifies to his 
own. coming in the same manner is entirely reasonable to believe. 


484 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Still another reason why tongues are not the evidence of the 
baptism with the Holy Spirit is that this teaching makes them 
a sign to believers. But Paul says they are not a sign to be- 
lievers, but to the unbeliever. A certain writer of the ‘‘tongues 
movement’’ has admitted that ‘‘the doctrine that all are to 
speak in tongues when baptized in the Spirit is based entirely 
upon supposition without a solitary ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ ”’ 

In answer to the claim that speaking in tongues as at Pente- 
cost is different from the gift of tongues as at Corinth, it may 
be said that speaking is the only way to exercise the gift. It 
has been affirmed by one that ‘‘the manifestation of the Spirit’’ 
(1 Cor. 12:7) igs to be identified with the speaking in tongues 
at Pentecost, but not with=the exercise of the gift of tongues. 
They say the ‘‘manifestation of the Spirit’’ is for all who re- 
ceive the Spirit, but that the gift of tongues is not given to all. 
But such a distinction has no support in the Scriptures and 
clearly bears the marks of having been invented to support the 
theory that speaking with tongues is the evidence of the baptism 
with the Spirit. After stating ‘‘the manifestation of the Spirit 
is given to every man to profit withal’’ (v. 7), the Apostle im- 
mediately proceeds to show that these ‘‘manifestations’’ are 
through the different gifts, nine of which he names. ‘‘The mani- 
festation of the Spirit’’ includes all the gifts. The ‘‘mani- 
festation’’ (v. 7) is identical with the ‘‘gifts’’ (v. 4) and the 
‘foperations’’ (v. 6). In the first sentence of the chapter the 
Apostle states that he is writing ‘‘concerning spiritual gifts.’’ 
When nearing the close of the twelfth chapter of 1 Corinthians, 
Paul summed up his foregoing arguments by stating that God 
had not given the same gifts to all in the church, but had dis- 
tributed them as he willed. Verses 28-30 must be connected 
with the verses 7-11. It is all one argument. In verse 30 he 
says, ‘‘ Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues?’’ 
The implication is clear that the answer must be, No. We agree 
with the Apostle that all do not speak with tongues. Therefore, 
speaking with tongues can not be the evidence of the baptism 
with the Spirit. 

5. Proper Attitude Towards Speaking in Tongues.—Two opposite 
extremes should be avoided in our attitude toward speaking in 
tongues. We should not fall into the error of the Corinthian 
church and of some who profess to speak in tongues today by 


BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT 485 


exalting tongues manifestations out of proper proportion to all 
other operations of the Spirit. The opposite extreme to be 
avoided is the excluding of all speaking in tongues as being im- 
proper or not of God. Paul very well described the proper atti- 
tude when he said, ‘‘Covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak 
with tongues’’ (1 Cor. 14:39). Keep other gifts more promi- 
nent because they are of more value, but allow the speaking in 
tongues, because it is the operation of God’s Spirit and for God’s 
glory. Paul does not urge the speaking in tongues, neither 
should we urge it. It should not be regarded as proof of deep 
spirituality in the speaker, as it is the least important of all 
gifts. The church at Corinth spoke much in tongues, yet it 
was one of the least spiritual of the New Testament congrega- 
tions, being ‘‘carnal,’’ having division and strife among them- 
selves, tolerating one guilty of incest, and going to law with 
each other. We should not condemn all speaking in tongues as 
of the devil nor accept all as being of God. 

We are not to understand, however, that Paul’s instruction, 
‘*Horbid not to speak with tongues,’’ means that the speaker or 
the church should put no restraint on the exercise of the gift. 
In the public gathering Paul himself forbids all improper use of 
it. He lays down four principles for the regulation of the gift 
as follows: 

(1) Proportionate Value. It should be regarded as being 
much less important than other gifts of the Spirit, especially 
prophecy. ‘‘In the church I had rather speak five words with 
my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, 
than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue’’ (1 Cor. 14: 
19). He also says, to have charity alone is better than to have 
all spiritual gifts without it. Tongues must not crowd out these 
more important things, but always be subordinate. 

(2) For Edification. ‘‘Let all things be done unto edify- 
ing’’ (1 Cor. 14:26). The public service is for the edification 
and benefit of all, not a place for one individual selfishly to dis- 
play his gifts either for his personal edification or to satisfy his 
own vanity or pride. This was a common error at Corinth as. 
well as among many today. Since speaking in an unknown 
tongue not understood by the congregation is not edifying to 
them, reason as well as Scripture teaches that the congregation 
should not be burdened with such public demonstrations unless 


486 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


one is present who can interpret what is said. ‘‘But if there 
be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the chureh; and let 
him speak to himself, and to God’’ (1 Cor. 14:28). 

(3) Orderliness. ‘“Let all things be done decently and in 
order’’’ (1° Cor. 14:40). Orderliness is characteristic of God 
both in the material and in the spiritual realms. Can we imagine 
God responsible for, or pleased with, a meeting where several 
persons lie prostrate and seemingly unconscious on the floor, a 
number of them at the same time suddenly breaking out in what 
purports to be unknown tongues? Is such lying prostrate by 
men and women in the aisles of a public place according’ to 
decency? Does order allow such a babel of tongues? Is it be- 
coming to the house of God? ‘‘If therefore the whole chureh 
be' come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, 
and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will 
they not say that ye are mad’’ (1 Cor. 14:23). 

(4) Self-Control. ‘The spirits of the prophets are subject 
to the prophets’’ (1 Cor. 14:32). Opposed to this statement 
from Paul is a theory held by many today that those who speak 
with tongues are under the direct control of the Holy Spirit and 
are not personally responsible for their particular actions and 
speaking, and that to interfere with their actions is rebuking 
the Holy Ghost. They suppose their lack of self-control is 
proof of the control of the Spirit. The heathen theory is that 
divine possession excludes’ the use of reason. It is character- 
istic of possession by a demon spirit to destroy one’s free will 
and to compel one to do that which he would not. Such loss of 
self-control may also in some instances be traced to purely hu- 
man causes. But the Spirit of God never deprives persons of 
their freedom. God gave us our reason, and his glory does not 
require that he take it away. His method is to cooperate with 
our wills, not to override them. It has been well said, that ‘‘the 
highest Christian experience is not attained through the aban: 
donment of one’s own faculties, the abnegation of one’s own 
personality, the surrender of one’s own consciousness.’’ It is! 
unseriptural and unbecoming for a Christian to give himself 
over unreservedly to a mysterious power and to unconsciousness. 
God gave us our free will and consciousness and is most glori- 
fied by our retaining them. True consecration is not, as some 
wrongly suppose, a giving away of one’s reason and personality. 


BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT 487 


God does not want men to do this. It does not honor him, but 
rather dishonors him by our giving away that very thing that 
makes for intelligent, voluntary worship of him. Consecration 
means rather a continual willingness to exercise our free voli- 
tions as God pleases while at all times we retain the power to 
will and otherwise. This is far more honoring to God than to 
let ourselves sink into unconsciousness, which is nowhere taught 
in the Bible. 


CHAPTER VII 
DIVINE PHYSICAL HEALING 


Works on systematic theology of the past have usually 
omitted consideration of the doctrine of divine healing of the 
body, but because of its large place in the Scriptures and espe- 
cially in view of the special interest in the subject among Chris- 
tians of the present time, no such work is complete which fails 
to treat this subject. It is properly discussed under Soteriol- 
ogy because it is one of the benefits of the atonement and an 
aspect of salvation from the effects of the fall. 


I. The Fact of Divine Healing 


The actuality of the occurrence of divine healing is not a 
question of theory but one of fact. Either such healing has 
actually been effected or it has not. If its reality can be shown, 
then theology may properly inquire as to the nature of such 
healing and the conditions on which it is performed. What is 
the evidence, then, that divine healing is a reality? 

1. Scriptural Examples of Healing —The several arguments 
given under the heading Apologetics in proof of the actual 
occurrence of miracles need not here be repeated. That miracles 
are possible and probable, that the proof of their occurrence is 
possible, and that they have actually occurred is here assumed to 
have been already sufficiently proved. The present question is, 
what is the Scriptural evidence that this particular class of mir- 
acles, the healing of physical ailments, has occurred? 

The Scriptures record instances of healing as performed, not 
only by Jesus, but also by the apostles and other New Testa- 
ment preachers, and by prophets of the Old Testament period. 
Notable among the healings described in the Old Testament are 
those of Naaman and Hezekiah. The first of these men was a 
great Syrian military leader and the other one of the greatest 
kings of Judah. Both were men of intelligence thoroughly com- 
petent to judge as to the reality of their diseases and cures. 
Naaman was afflicted with leprosy, a disease incurable by any 
human methods then known. But by obedience to the command- 
ment of Elisha, the prophet, in dipping himself seven times in 
the waters of the Jordan he was instantly cured entirely of the 


leprosy. Elisha ascribed the healing to the power of God. In 
488 


DIVINE PHYSICAL HEALING 489 


view of all the facts the account is entirely credible. Hezekiah 
suffered from a severe boil which God told him through the 
prophet Isaiah would prove fatal. In answer to Hezekiah’s 
earnest prayer he was healed and permitted to live thereafter 
for fifteen years. 

In fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies (Isa. 35: 4-6; 
Matt. 8:16, 17) Jesus healed many. He healed ‘‘all manner 
of sicknesses and all manner of disease among the people’’ (Matt. 
4:23; 9:35). He healed all who came to him. None were 
turned away. Particular instances of notable miraculous heal- 
ings by him are: the nobleman’s son twenty-five miles away 
(John 4), Peter’s mother-in-law of a fever (Matt. 8:14, 15), 
the leper (Matt. 8:2), the paralytic (Matt. 9:2), the lame man 
at the Pool of Bethesda (John 5: 5-9), the withered hand (Matt. 
12:10), the woman bowed together (Luke 13: 10-20), the cen- 
turion’s servant (Matt. 8:5), the Gadarene demoniac (Mark 
5:2), the woman who touched the hem of his garment (Luke 
8:48), two blind men (Matt. 9:27), the daughter of the Syro- 
phenician woman (Matt. 15:21), the blind man of Jerusalem 
(John 9), and blind Bartimeus (Luke 18: 35-43). These are 
but a few of the many instances particularly described. On 
various occasions vast multitudes came to him with their sick 
and diseased and he healed them all (Matt. 8:16). 

After the crucifixion of Jesus his apostles continued to per- 
form wonderful healings. Peter healed the lame man at the 
gate of the temple (Acts 3:2), also Avneas of Lydda, who was 
similarly afflicted (Acts 9:34). Paul healed the lame man at 
Lystra (Acts 14:10), and many at Ephesus and elsewhere (Acts 
19:12). Neither was power to heal limited to the apostles as 
is sometimes affirmed. Stephen and Philip, the evangelist, were 
instrumental in wonderful healings (Acts 6:8; 8:7). To deny 
the reality of these miracles of healing is to deny the credibility 
of the Scriptures. Regardless of the subject or of the nature 
or severity of the affliction, all were healed who came. 

2. Post-Apostolic Healing. —Contrary to a prevalent idea, di- 
vine healing did not cease with the death of the apostles. Be- 
cause of the early declension of true Christianity and spiritual- 
ity there came gradually a cessation of divine healing in a great 
measure, yet reliable history testifies to healings as being com- 
mon in the second and third centuries, and there is evidence it 


490 CHRISTIAN, THEOLOGY 


did not entirely cease at any time, even during the Dark Ages. 
Justin Martyr, of the second century, describes the casting out 
of demons in his day as follows: ‘‘For numberless demoniacs 
throughout the whole world, and in your city, many of our 
Christian men, exorcising them in the name of Jesus Christ, 
who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, have healed, and do 
heal, rendering helpless and driving possessing devils out. of the 
men, though they could not be cured by all the other exorcists, 
and those who used incantations and drugs’’ (Apology II, Chap. 
6). Origen, of the third century, wrote that ‘‘the name of Jesus 
can still remove distractions from the minds of men, and expel 
demons, and also take away disease.’’ Tertullian, of the same 
period, testified to the healing of many. Chrysostom and Augus- 
tine also testified to actual instances of healing. Another of 
the fourth century, Theodorus, of Mopsuestia, is quoted as say- 
ing, “‘Many heathen amongst us are being healed by Christians 
from whatsoever sickness they have, so abundant are miracles 
in our midst.’’ That miracles of healing had not ceased. as late 
as the fourth century is affirmed by the historian Mosheim. 

At a later period divine healing was also taught and prac- 
tised by the Waldenses and Moravians. In post-Reformation 
times among those whose labors were accompanied by instances 
of healing were the Covenanters of Scotland, the early Friends, 
especially in the days of George Fox, the early Methodists, 
Luther, Wesley, Whitefield, Baxter, Irving, Thomas. Erskine, 
Dorothea Trudell, Blumhardt, Rein, and Stockmayer. 

3. A Present Reality—-Probably at no time since the period of 
early Christianity has the teaching and practise of divine heal- 
ing been more common than in recent years. Many miraculous 
healings are being done in. various Christian lands and_ also 
among Christians of heathen lands. These healings include the 
eure of all kinds of diseases, many of the cures being instan- 
taneous and as wonderful as those recorded in the Scriptures. 
These healings have not been limited to any particular religious 
body. They have occurred, not only among ‘‘holiness’’ bodies, 
but in several instances among those of the older and larger 
Protestant denominations. Of the latter the Anglican Church 
has given special prominence to it, although healings have been 
more common in some of the former class. Some persons have 
been especially instrumental in the healing of the sick. It is. 


DIVINE PHYSICAL HEALING 491 


not to be assumed that the doctrinal teaching generally of such 
persons, nor that of the religious bodies with which they are 
associated, is necessarily correct merely because God is pleased 
to operate in.this respect through them. It might as well be 
assumed that the special blessing of God upon an evangelist in 
soul-winning is evidence that the doctrinal. teaching of. that 
evangelist or of his denomination is altogether Scriptural. 

These present-day healings.are often done publicly . before 
many witnesses... They can be and have been critically investi- 
gated.. It is true that some who claim to be healed are not, and 
that others receive. but temporary relief; but that many are 
genuinely and permanently cured none can successfully deny. 
To shut one’s eyes to facts is useless. Divine healing is a pres- 
ent-day reality and is not open to question as to its actual 
occurrence. 

II... The Reasonableness of Divine Healing 

1. An Aspect of Christ’s Redemptive Work.—-We have already 
shown that death was not the portion of man in the time of his 
primitive holiness. . His body was created. essentially mortal, but 
through the divine provision of the tree of life, death did not 
become actual. Inasmuch as the eating of the tree of life re- 
sulted in the rejuvenation of the body and the overcoming. of 
the tendency to death, it must also have been a preventative or 
remedy for disease. As death became actual through man’s sin, 
so likewise sickness, and disease, which before were but a possi- 
bility, now became an actuality. But sickness is not only a re- 
sult of sin in that sin barred man from the tree of life, the 
preventative of sickness; sickness and disease are.in a consider- 
able measure a natural consequence of sinful indulgence and of 
the, unnatural conditions effected by man’s fall into sin. .In 
the condition of their original creation, when, God pronounced 
them “‘‘very good,’’ probably men’s bodies were not such an easy 
prey to disease ag at the present time. 

Because physical disease and pain are the consequence of 
sin and in a measure a penalty for sin, it is proper to expect 
provisions in. the redemptive work of Christ for the overcoming 
of physical disease. It is true that redemption is not complete 
until the resurrection of men’s bodies, but the sting of death is 
now removed so it is ‘‘gain’’ to the Christian rather than a 
penalty. But reason leads one to believe the great. work of 


492 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Christ’s redemption ought to include provisions for deliverance 
from physical suffering in this life. Unless it does provide for 
physical healing it is certainly not a complete redemption. But 
we believe it is a perfect redemption and should therefore expect 
to find healing for the body therein. And in this expectation we 
are not disappointed. 

The evangelical prophet, Isaiah, in that wonderful fifty- 
third chapter concerning the atonement begins by saying, “‘Sure- 
ly he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows’’ (Isa. 
53:4). The evangelist Matthew quotes these words as follows: 
‘“‘Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses’’ (Matt. 
8:17). That such a translation of Matthew’s quotation is cor- 
rect is evident from the connection in which he makes the quota- 
tion and the interpretation he gives it. That the inspiring 
Spirit made no mistake in that interpretation in Matthew’s 
gospel is also shown by other renderings of these words in Isa. 
03:4. In his commentary on this text Albert Barnes renders 
the words in harmony with Matthew’s reading. The Septuagint 
rendering of the preceding verse, instead of ‘‘acquainted with 
grief,’’ is ‘‘acquainted with the bearing of sickness.’’ The 
original word rendered ‘‘grief’’ in both the third and fourth 
verses of the common version is the same word in the Hebrew. 
Therefore as it is rendered sickness in the third verse of the 
Septuagint so the same word in the fourth verse may be properly 
rendered. According to Dr. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance 
the Hebrew word choliy, rendered ‘‘griefs’’ in verse four of the 
common version, may be translated ‘‘disease’’ or ‘‘sickness,”’ 
and the Hebrew word makob, rendered ‘‘sorrows’’ in the com- 
mon English version, may be translated ‘‘pain.’’ With such a 
reading of Isa. 53: 4 we have still further support of the reading 
in Matt. 8:17. Also the original words for ‘‘bear’’ and ‘‘earry”’ 
in Isa. 53:4 denote, not mere sympathy, but the actual sub- 
stitution and utter removal of the thing borne. It is a bearing 
away as in the case of the bearing away of sins by the scape- 
goat. Therefore as Christ has borne our sins, in some sense he 
has also borne our sicknesses so that our bearing them is un- 
necessary. After Matthew tells of how Jesus healed the multi- 
tudes of sick persons who were brought to him he said, ‘‘He 
.. . healed all that were sick: that it might be fulfilled which 
was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our 


DIVINE PHYSICAL HEALING 493 


infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.’’ According to this in- 
spired statement Jesus healed the sick, not merely in order to 
give men proof of his divinity, but because that was a part of 
his redemptive work. 

2. Scripture Promises of Healing —Divine healing and belief 
in its reality is reasonable on the ground of the divine promises 
which are expressed or implied in the Scriptures. These prom- 
ises are of two main classes—general and specific. By general 
promises is meant those which promise whatever one may ask. 
The specific promises are those which offer healing especially 
on certain conditions. Examples of general promises are as 
follows: ‘‘ All things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, be- 
lieving, ye shall receive’’ (Matt. 21:22). ‘*‘ What things soever 
ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye 
shall have them’’ (Mark 11:24). ‘‘Whatsoever ye shall ask in 
my name, that will I do’’ (John 14:13). ‘‘If ye abide in me, 
and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it 
shall be done unto you’’ (John 15:7). ‘‘Whatsoever ye shall 
ask the Father in my name, he will give it you’’ (John 16: 23). 
If these were the only promises of answer to prayer for the 
sick they alone would furnish sufficient ground for belief in 
divine healing. 

The specific promises of healing are very definite. In the 
Great Commission as recorded by Mark, Jesus said that among 
other signs which should follow those who believe upon him, 
‘‘They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover’’ (Mark 
16:18). The healing of the sick here promised was not to be 
through the apostles, but through those who believe of ‘‘every 
creature’’ to whom the apostles were commanded to preach. 
Both salvation and healing are included in the Great Com- 
mission. A question has sometimes been raised as to the genu- 
ineness of this verse, but it is found in all but one of the four 
oldest Greek manuscripts and is generally accepted by textual 
eritics. Though Matthew’s record of the Great Commission does 
not specifically promise healing, it is implied in the words 
‘‘teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
manded you.’’ Jesus taught the apostles to pray for healing and 
here commanded them to teach others to do so, which implies 
his intention to answer such prayers. 

The gifts of healing are represented in 1 Cor. 12: 9-30 as 


494 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


common in the church at the time Paul wrote. They are said 
to belong, not merely to apostles, but to whomsoever God might 
be pleased to give them. ‘These gifts of healing imply the’ fact 
of healing. No promise of healing is more specifie than that 
given in Jas, 5:14. “‘Is there any sick among you? let him 
call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, 
anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer 
of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; 
and: if he have committed ‘sins, they shall be forgiven him”’ 
(Jas. 5:14, 15). The power to heal is here said to belong, not 
merely to the apostles who were soon passing away, but to the 
elders of the church. 

3. The Divine Compassion.—God is our father and we are his 
children. ‘‘Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord 
pitieth them that fear him.’’ What normal human father would 
fail to cure a suffering child if possible? It is possible for God 
to heal his children and it is reasonable to believe he will do’so 
if they meet the proper conditions and he can do so consistently 
with their good otherwise. His interest in them is such that 
he has the very hairs of their heads all numbered (Matt! 10: 
30). And as he is mindful of the fall of the sparrow, he surely 
will help one of his suffering children who ‘‘are of more value 
than many sparrows.’’ In view of his ability as Creator of all 
men, his benevolence, and his compassion, it is reasonable to’ 
expect him to heal the sick in answer to prayer. And devout 
persons do almost spontaneously pray to him’ for physical heal- 
ing when sick. Bon | 


: Ill. Nature of Divine Physical Healing | 

1. Definition of Divine Healing. —D ivine healing is physical 
healine by divine power directly manifested in answer to prayer 
and. faith. .Because God is the author of nature and imminent 
in nature and his power is back of. all. its operations, therefore 
all healing resulting from the processes of nature is in a sense 
divine healing mediately effected and one may properly give 
thanks to God for such healing. Though healing:is through the 
use. of natural remedies it may be attributed to God, who has 
created all those things and, given them whatever qualities they 
possess that are efficacious in curing physical ailments. 

But none of these natural. processes are divine healing in 


DIVINE PHYSICAL HEALING 495 


the sense of the Scriptures and as here used. Divine healing is 
not natural, but supernatural healing. It is a miraculous mani- 
festation which transcends nature. Though it affects the ma- 
terial body, yet it is not by material means. As to its mode it 
is like the new birth of which Jesus said, ‘‘The wind bloweth 
where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst 
not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one 
that is born of the Spirit.’’ And likewise mysterious is the mode 
of God in the work of supernatural healing. Rationalistic minds, 
who are ignorant of spiritual operations, persist in attempting 
to account for it on natural grounds, such as the power of mind 
over matter, or the result of an effort of the will. But they err 
by supplying in their own minds a motive or cause which does 
not exist. Those’ who have much experience in divine healing 
know that not infrequently the healing power comes upon the 
afflicted person while his mind and will are inactive or directed 
toward other things than his healing. 

2. God’s Purpose in Healing—It has been commonly believed 
by Christians that the divine purpose in the miraculous healings 
described in the Scriptures was to show that Christianity is the 
true religion. This belief is correct as far as it goes. It was 
important that Christ should give clear evidence that he was the 
Son of God. Miraculous works of mercy in the healing of the 
suffering, the giving sight to those born blind, the healing of 
lepers, and of those hopelessly afflicted otherwise, were very 
convincing proof that he was of God. If he was of God his 
statements were credible. And if he furnished absolute proof 
that his statements were credible, men could properly do nothing 
else than believe his claim that he was the divine Son of God. 
When mighty healings were performed through the name of 
Jesus by the apostles they were shown to be men of God and 
their messages, messages of God. Here was evidence of the di- 
vine authority of Scriptures, or that they are a divine revela- 
tion. More than once did Jesus appeal to his healings as evi- 
dence that he was the Christ. The miracles of Jesus and those 
through the apostles did actually convince men at the time they 
were performed and have continued to convince men to the 
present time that Christianity is the true religion. There was 
special need of such attestation of the divinity of Jesus and of 
the fact that those were of God through whom Revelation was 


496 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


given. But though the need does not exist in the same degree 
today, yet the need still exists of the evidence afforded by mir- 
acles that Christianity is of God. Skeptics are still being turned 
to faith by miracles as when Nicodemus said to Jesus, ‘‘No man 
can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.’’ 
Miracles also serve a valuable purpose today in confirming the 
faith of believers. Doubtless an important purpose of miracles 
is to help men’s faith in God, but this is not the only purpose. 
Physical healings may have value as types of healing of spir- 
itual ills, but this is not the primary purpose of divine healing. 

Jesus healed the multitudes because ‘‘he was moved with 
compassion’’ for them. He is still as compassionate as at that 
time, and doubtless this is an important reason for his healing 
men’s suffering bodies. God saves men because he loves them 
(John 3:16), and he heals them for a similar reason. Yet there 
are evidently various limitations on the manifestation of this 
divine compassion, for many sufferers are not cured. Why are 
some not healed? Evidently some are not healed because it is 
appointed unto man to die and the time has come when God 
wills that they depart from this life. Others are not healed 
because they fail to meet the proper conditions of faith and 
obedience. It is important to the glory of God and the well- 
being of men that healing be not dispensed unconditionally and 
indiscriminately. It is provided only on appropriate conditions 
as is salvation. 

Though it is generally God’s will to heal the sick, yet he is 
more concerned about men’s spiritual and moral excellence than 
about their physical health; therefore God may try men through 
allowing them to remain afflicted for a period. In this particu- 
lar, healing is not parallel with salvation. God’s will is always 
to save the soul, but, though generally, not always to heal the 
body. Such a view does not ignore those promises of healing 
which in themselves offer healing to all. The promises of God 
are often limited or conditioned, not by any statement in im- 
mediate connection, but by statements elsewhere in the Bible. 
If this be not so, in view of Jas. 5:15, then, when a good man 
dies for whose healing prayer has been offered we are obliged 
to attribute the lack of healing to unbelief. But unbelief is 
displeasing to God; therefore one must either displease God to 
get to heaven or else certainly know God’s will so he will not 


DIVINE PHYSICAL HEALING 497 


ask for healing. It is better to regard God as having a will con- 
cerning us individually at the present time. We may properly 
believe on the ground of the Seriptures that it is ordinarily 
God’s will to heal us and may pray for it unless it becomes 
manifest in some way that it is not his will. Healing may be 
withheld for a time as a test of faith or for some other wise 
reason. God may as properly try people by physical suffering 
as by other methods. 

3. God’s Method of Healing —Any attempt fully to explain 
the mode of the divine operation in healing is necessarily fruit- 
less. Every miracle is incomprehensible as to its mode. Divine 
healing is supernatural and the mode of it must be inscrutable 
to the human mind. It has already been stated that divine heal- 
ing is not usually nor normally through natural processes or 
humanly appled means. Some persons testify to having prayed 
for relief in times of suffering and to having been divinely di- 
rected, as a consequence, to use certain means which effected 
their healing. Such testimonies are not incredible, especially 
in the case of persons who are not enlightened concerning their 
gospel privileges, but evidently this is not God’s usual method 
of healing as set forth in the Scriptures. 

God heals usually by a direct divine efficiency. As in the wit- 
ness of the Spirit to us or the Spirit’s communication of knowl- 
edge to us he usually does not employ our physical organs, but 
directly makes us conscious of that which he would have us 
know, so in healing God is not dependent upon any physical 
means or processes, but operates immediately in effecting health. 
As in the witness of the Spirit one suddenly finds himself in 
possession of a conviction that a particular thing is true, so 
when one is healed he suddenly becomes aware that he is well, 
but in neither instance is the mode comprehended. 

Divine healing may be either instantaneous or gradual. It 
seems probable the healings recorded in the Bible were nearly 
all, if not all, instantaneous. Of all the healings described in 
the New Testament it can not be positively shown that any were 
accomplished gradually. Because those healings were described 
to show the power of God, it was important that only instan- 
taneous healings be recorded. But the Bible does not state that 
God did not then or will not now sometimes heal gradually. 
Neither is there any rational ground for excluding gradual 


498 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


healing by divine power. Many persons are so healed today in’ 
answer to prayer. This is reason enough for believing God will 
heal in this manner. ‘To say an instance of healing is gradual 
is not to say it is indefinite or unreal. One may definitely begin 
to recover at a particular time from a disease of many years 
and in few days’ time be completely restored. Such healings 
are not instantaneous, but gradual; yet they are real. 

Also healing may be either partial or complete, or it may be 
either temporary or permanent and yet be genuine divine heal- 
ing. Jesus once healed a blind man by two distinct stages. Not 
infrequently persons today receive partial healing in answer to 
prayer. Sometimes such persons receive complete healing later, 
in other instances they do not. ~Others are temporarily restored 
and soon after become afflicted again in the same manner. 
Doubtless much of such incomplete healing is due to unbelief. 
Many are instantly and completely healed today. 


IV. Conditions. for Healing 


1. Faith and Prayer.—The conditions for healing are few and 
simple. The primary and all-important condition is’ faith, It 
was unbelief at Nazareth that hindered the performance of 
many: mighty works there: The disciples failed to cure the 
demoniae son because of their unbelief, Jesus said to one who 
raised a ‘question’ as to his ability, ‘‘If thou canst believe all 


things are possible to him that believeth.’’? -“‘The prayer of 
faith shall save the sick.’’ ~The faith necessary to healing is 


not a-mere theoretical or intellectual belief in God’s power, but 
a‘ trustful and confident stepping out on the divine promise as 
applying to the present need. It is a bold reliance upon God to 
heal a particular ailment at a particular time. Faith is not a 
mere arbitrary requirement for healing. Faith is that which 
eonnects the healing with God in the consciousness of him who 
prays. If healing were given by God without faith on the part 
of him who prays, the person would not have those feelings of 
gratitude which mean so much to hig spiritual well-being and 
God’s glory. Faith for healing is of the same essential nature 
and is necessary for the same reasons as is faith for other bene- 
fits in answer'to prayer. Faith'is necessary on the part of those 
who pray and also on the part of the sufferer unless he be for 
some reason disqualified to exercise faith. 


DIVINE PHYSICAL HEALING 499 


Prayer is not essential to healing as is faith. Jesus and the 
apostles healed many through their word. ' Healings are some- 
times so done today.’ The faith of an afflicted person may claim 
the promises of God and healing may be effected before sufficient 
time elapses for any formal praying. Yet prayer is a Biblical 
condition for healing. ‘‘What things soever ye desire, when ye 
pray, believe that’ ye receive them, and ye shall have them’’ 
(Mark 11:24), “‘Is any sick among you? let him call for the 
elders of the church; and let them pray over him... and the 
prayer of faith shall save the sick’’ (Jas. 5:14.15). Prayer 
has much the same value as does faith in relating the healing 
to the healer in the consciousness of the one who prays, and is 
also a‘help to the exercise of faith. The effectual prayer is a 
fervent’ prayer. Sometimes healing is obtained only after much 
persistence in prayer. Such continuance in prayer is Scrip- 
tural (Luke 11: 5-13). | 

“2. Anointing with Oil and Laying on of Hands.—The classical 
text’ on divine healing is Jas..5;13-18, There the elders are 
commanded to anoint the sick with oil in the name of the Lord 
and’ pray over him. Such anointing was practised by Jesus’ 
disciples in their healing of the sick. ‘‘And they went out, and 
preached that men should repent, And they cast out many 
devils, and anownted: with ol many that were sick, and healed 
them?’ (Mark 6:12, 13). What is the purpose of this anoint- 
ing of the sick with oil? Evidently the oil in itself has no ecura- 
tive' value when merely poured upon the head. Olive-oil was that 
commonly used for purposes of anointing. “In special instances 
a costly perfume was used either mixed with the oil or alone 
as in the anointing of Jesus at Bethany. But in no case did the 
oil ~possess special healing properties. Anointing was common 
in the Old Testament days. Aaron was inducted into the high 
priestly office by the process of anomting. In like manner Saul 
and David were appointed king over Israel, Oil is represented 
in the Scriptures as symbolic of the Holy Spirit. “When David 
was anointed the Spirit of God came upon him from that day 
forward: The anointing of the sick with oil has the significance 
of the Spirit and power of God coming upon them to heal them. 
It: is a very apt symbol and is therefore helpful to the faith of 
those: afflicted. It is also an act of obedience, the practise of 
which helps to give definiteness and strength to one’s faith. 


500 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Similar in its purpose to anointing of the sick is the laying 
on of the hands of those who pray for the healing of the sick. 
Jesus and the apostles often laid their hands upon the sick or 
touched them as a means to their healing. One of the signs 
which Jesus said should follow those who believe was that ‘‘they 
shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover’’ (Mark 16: 
18). By the act of laying on of hands by those who are called 
to pray for the sick there is a symbolic conveying of divine 
power much as there was a giving of the Holy Ghost by the lay- 
ing of the apostles’ hands upon believers. There is no reason 
for believing the power of God is actually transmitted by the 
laying on of hands or that it might not come upon the sick per- 
son as well without this physical contact. But as a symbolic 
transmitting of divine power to the body of the suffering one, 
it has much value in assisting him to believe, and in making real 
to his consciousness the fact of the divine operation in his heal- 
ing. Symbols have always had a big place in true religion and 
do have in the Christian religion, especially in the established 
ordinances. They are valuable even to the most devout and in- 
telligent persons because of inability of men in their present 
state fully to comprehend the reality of spiritual operations. 

The anointing of the sick with oil is directed to be performed 
by the elders especially. Yet the Scriptures do not limit it to 
them or state that others shall not do it. Naturally they are 
ordinarily best qualified to do this service because of being more 
advanced in the religious life and as the divinely constituted 
leaders in the congregation. The laying on of hands for the 
recovery of the sick is said to be by those who ‘‘believe.’’ It 
is a proper function for the elders to perform in connection wiih 
anointing with oil. But inasmuch as one who is not an clder 
may have the gift of healing, according to 1 Corinthians 12, 
there is reason to allow that all such may properly anoint and lay 
hands upon the sick for their healing. 

3. Attitude Toward Human Remedies.—Does divine healing ex- 
elude all human effort for the healing of the sick? If not, to 
what extent may the sick consistently employ natural means for 
their relief while they are trusting God to heal them? Doubt- 
less two extremes are possible in relation to these questions. Some 
pray for God to heal them while their faith is in natural reme- 
dies. Others suppose trust in God bars observance of well-known 


DIVINE PHYSICAL HEALING 501 


laws of health. Certainly God needs no natural means to bless in 
effecting men’s healing. Jesus and the apostles used none. 
Divine healing is by spiritual power alone without natural rem- 
edies. 

The Bible incidentally refers to the inefficacy of human meth- 
ods of healing in comparison with healing by divine power. 
It does not state nor imply that the efforts of physicians and 
the use of medicine are displeasing to God. Divine healing is so 
represented that it is evident it is far superior to human methods 
of healing. God offers divine healing, but does not require that 
men accept it. In other words, the Scriptures do not teach that 
the employment of human methods is sinful. But that it is 
far better in every respect to be healed by direct divine power 
than to trust in the many uncertain human methods must be 
apparent to all. The devout person who is enlightened will 
naturally prefer to trust in God. Because of the limitations of 
human wisdom and the uncertainty of the effects of many human 
remedies, there is necessarily an element of danger in their use. 
Also the fact that these remedies often fail to cure is strong 
reason for trusting in the power of the Almighty. Another ad- 
vantage of being healed by God is the spiritual blessings that it 
entails. 

Yet there is a place for physicians and human remedies. 
Many sick persons who are outside of Christ or who are without 
knowledge of their privilege of being divinely cured or for other 
reasons lack faith to trust in God need the help of skilled physi- 
cians. It is unbecoming to those who trust in God for healing to 
despise or oppose physicians. Many excellent Christian men 
are engaged in the medical profession and are earnestly en- 
deavoring to benefit suffering humanity. Such should be re- 
spected accordingly. They have done much by their surgical 
skill and by discovering and making known the laws of health 
to benefit humanity. There is not necessarily incompatibility be- 
tween their work and prayer for the sick. Especially when 
they found they could give no relief to the sick, devout physi- 
cians have recommended prayer. Doubtless their services are 
desirable in case of serious wounds, the loss of a limb, adjust- 
ment of fractures or dislocation of bones, or at child-birth. 

It has been the experience of many that to the extent their 
reliance upon God for healing was weak to that extent they 


502 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


used and trusted in human means. This is usually so. Often not 
until a definite decision has been made to discontinue the use 
of medicines has an effective reliance on God’s promises been 
possible. But how far one may go consistently with faith in 
God. in assisting nature by regulation of diet, employment of 
various appliances, and other remedial efforts is not stated: in 
the Scriptures. It is a matter to be determined by the judgment 
and conscience of the one concerned. The Bible has drawn no 
fe line as to limitations in such instances, and it is useless for 
men to attempt drawing such a line. These principles should 
govern our attitude, not only towards the use of medicines, but 
also towards the employment of chiropractors, osteopaths, and 
similar human means of healing? 


V. Objections to Divine Healing 

Some objections to divine healing are made by. unbelievers 
who are sometimes more interested in vindicating, their. unbe- 
lief than in discovering truth. Many of their objections are un- 
worthy of being answered and require no answer for fair-minded 
persons. Of other objections many have been answered in. the 
foregoing discussion. The objection that the age of miracles is 
past has already been answered. The objection has also been 
met that the healings described in the Bible were performed only 
for proof that Christianity is of God and their continuance is no 
longer needed. 

1. That it Is Similar to Spiritualistic Healing. —Not Pa 
ly the objection is made to divine healing that it is similar in cer- 
tain respects to the practises of Spiritualism, animal magnetism, 
clairvoyance, ete. It is useless to deny that. spiritualistie med- 
iums exercise supernatural power in some instances, whatever 
degree of fraud they may practise at other times. Evidently 
they accomplish healings, But these are done by the ‘‘spirits 
of devils working miracles.’’ The power which operates in 
modern spiritualism is identical with that of Egyptian magicians, 
the Greek oracle, and the medicine-men of savage peoples. Spir- 
itualists perform healings without material remedies by spirit- 
ual power and in this their healing is similar to divine healing. 
But must the genuine be given up because it has been counter- 
feited? Is divine healing not more important in order to keep 


DIVINE PHYSICAL HEALING 503 


men from being deceived by the devil? This objection is invalid 
against the practise of divine healing. 

2. That There Are Failures in Divine Healing —Instances of 
failure of persons to be healed for whom prayer has been offered 
is supposed by some to be a valid objection to divine healing. 
But if such an objection may properly be made to divine healing, 
surely there is much ground for objection to medical healing or 
healing by any other human method.. An objection might. as 
well be made to regeneration on the ground that some who pray 
for it fail to obtain it. The possibility of divine healing is unde- 
niably proved by the many instances of real healing. No fail- 
ures constitute any valid ground for objection to healing through 
prayer in view of these. As already shown, the failure to receive 
healing when prayer is offered may be due to unbelief, to dis- 
obedience, or to a lack of persistence or earnestness in praying; 
or it may be. because it is God’s will that the sick person. should 
die, or because God is pleased that his faith should be tempo- 
rarily tested in this way for his spiritual good. But failure of 
healing on any of these grounds is no argument. against divine 
healing. Especially if it is not God’s will that one should re- 
cover, no amount of medicine will cure. 

Another class of objections made to divine healing on.the 
ground of failure is the sickness of Epaphroditus and Trophi- 
mus, Paul’s thorn in the flesh, and Paul’s recommendation of 
wine to Timothy for his stomach’s sake and because of his often 
infirmities. Paul tells us Epaphroditus was recovered from his 
affliction and there is no room to believe Trophimus was not 
healed, their failure may have been due to one of the before- 
mentioned causes, in which case there could be no reflection on 
the efficacy of divine healing. The ‘‘messenger of Satan’’ sent 
to buffet Paul which he also designates ‘‘a thorn in the flesh’’ 
can not be proved to have been of the nature of disease or phys- 
ical weakness. It was for the purpose of keeping him from be- 
coming ‘‘exalted above measure’’ because of the abundance of 
revelations which God had given him. For other reasons and al- 
so because it was designed to keep him humble, not a few have 
supposed his ‘‘thorn in the flesh’’ was his physical sufferings 
through persecution and hardship for the sake of the gospel. 
But whatever it may have been, there is no proof it was of the 
nature of sickness; therefore it furnishes no ground for objec- 


504 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


tion to divine healing. It is evident from Paul’s words that 
Timothy was troubled with frequent illness, probably as a con- 
sequence of a weakness of the stomach. Paul’s fatherly interest 
in his young and less experienced associate led him to advise 
Timothy that the water where he was then located was harmful 
to his health and he should therefore use wine moderately in- 
stead. The recommendation had to do with diet rather than 
remedy. But surely these words of Paul furnish no proper 
sround for objection to the doctrine of divine healing. 

3. That God Created Herbs for Medicine—We readily admit 
that those things of which medicine is made were created by 
God. But where is the proof that God created these for the pur- 
pose of the manufacture of medicine? Not a few men of the 
medical profession have questioned the value of drugs as a means 
of curing disease. This lack of efficiency of drugs as remedies 
for disease is reason for doubt that their use for that purpose 
is divinely intended. The Scriptures nowhere say they shall 
not be so used by those who desire them, but the Scriptures do 
offer a better means of healing as God’s way, and devout persons 
who are enlightened as to their gospel privileges will usually 
choose to trust in God for their healing rather than in any of the 
uncertain human methods. 


PART VI 
THE CHURCH, OR ECCLESIOLOGY 


ets 


= 3 


h 


; Ki ie Li ‘ 
ns ‘gr 


N THAT 
> yoouowainna 10. Host 





PART VI 
THE CHURCH, OR ECCLESIOLOGY 


CHAPTER I 
ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH 


I.. Idea, of the Church 


1. Sense of the Term.—The word ‘‘church’’ is the rendering 
in the common, English version of the New Testament of the 
Greek term éxxAnota (ecclesia). The sense of the English term 
‘‘ehurch’’ in the New, Testament is determined wholly by the 
meaning of the Greek éxxAnota (ecclesia). The latter is derived 
from a compound term, é&x-xadéw (ek-kaleo), the latter part 
meaning to call and the former meaning out of. Ecclesia, there- 
fore denotes an assembly summoned or called out, a company 
selected or separated from the multitude. Before it was used 
of the Christian assembly it had a secular usage of the assembly 
of the citizens of a Greek city when summoned by the crier. 
Trench says, ‘* Ecclesia, as all know, was the lawful assembly in 
a free Greek city of all those possessed of the right of citizenship 
for the transaction of public affairs. That they were summoned 
is expressed in the latter part of the word; that they were sum- 
moned out of the whole population, a select portion of it, neither 
the populace, nor: yet strangers, nor those who had. forfeited 
their civil rights—this is expressed in the first. Both the calling 
and the calling out are moments to be remembered when the 
word is assumed into a higher Christian sense; for in them the 
chief part of its adaptation to its more august use lies.’’? Nota 
mere mob, but only an assembly summoned together was an 
ecclesia. 

The Hebrew word which is rendered ‘‘congregation’’ in the 
common English version, as in the expression ‘‘congregation of 
the: Lord,’’ is in’ the Greek Septuagint rendered éxxAnoia 
(ecclesia). The Hebrew church were the descendants of Israel, 
and were divinely called out from among the nations to be the 
special people of God. 

In the New Testament ecclesia is found one hundred and fif- 


teen times. In three instances it is used of the Greek assembly, 
507 


508 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


as in Acts 19:82, 39, where it is translated ‘‘assembly’’; two 
times it is used of the Hebrew congregation (Acts 7: 38 and Heb. 
2:12) and translated ‘‘church’’; and one hundred and ten times 
it is used of the Christian church. In this latter use it refers 
to those whom God has called or chosen out from the world. 
The church of God, then, is simply the company of God’s called- 
out ones. The sense of the term ecclesia is of much value in fur- 
nishing us a correct idea of what is the true church. 

2. The Universal Church.—’HxxAyota (Hcclesia), in its broad- 
est sense, is used of the entire company of those whom God has 
called in all ages whether they be on earth or in heaven. It con- 
sists of the aggregate of those who have been regenerated. In 
this sense the church is but one*and is so often represented in 
the Seriptures. Jesus said, ‘‘I will build my church’’ (Matt. 
16:18). The singular number here indicates that the universal 
church is spoken of. ‘‘Christ also loved the church, and gave 
himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the 
washing of water by the word, that he might present it to him- 
self a glorious church’’ (Eph. 5: 25-27). Evidently the local 
church can not be represented here as the bride of Christ, else 
innumerable brides will at last be presented to Christ, a figure 
which is entirely incongruous. When the church is represented 
as the body of Christ only the universal church can be meant. 
Christ is ‘‘Head over all things to the church, which is his 
body’’ (Eph. 1:22). In Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 the 
physical human body is used to represent the body of Christ. 
Of this body Christ is said to be the head. But if the body of 
Christ were used of the local church, then we have the image 
of one head with innumerable bodies. Other texts in which 
ecclesia is used in the universal sense are, ‘‘He is the head of 
the body, the church’’ (Col. 1:18) ; ‘‘For his body’s sake, which 
is the church’’ (v. 24); also Eph. 3:10, 21 and Heb. 12: 23. 
In this general aspect the church is sometimes described as in- 
visible. It is so designated because it has no visible or earthly 
organization as do local congregations with their meetings and 
elders, or as do humanly organized denominational churches. 
This designation does not imply that the universal church is not 
truly organized with a divine spiritual head to which every mem- 
ber is related. The universal church is not merely the aggre- 
gate of all who profess Christianity, but is that company whom 


ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH 509 


Christ has regenerated, in whom his Spirit dwells, and who are 
thereby joined to Christ and to one another. 

3. The Local Church.—’Exxiyoia (ecclesia) is also used in 
the Scriptures of the local congregation. This is its most com- 
mon sense, being so used in ninety-two instances. Examples of 
this usage are, ‘‘the church which was at Jerusalem’’ (Acts 8: 
1), ‘‘the churches of Galatia’’ (1 Cor. 16:1), and ‘‘the church 
of God which is at Corinth’’ (1 Cor. 1:2). The local church is 
the local embodiment and exhibition of the universal church. 
It is the company of the regenerate persons of a given commun- 
ity associated together according to the Scriptures for worship 
and the upbuilding of the kingdom of God. It is not merely an 
association of persons who have joined themselves together for 
social, benevolent, or even a religious purpose. <A true local 
church is divinely organized in the sense that it is composed of 
those who are saved, who all have the same Spirit, and who are 
all joined to the living Head of the body. Their association and 
fellowship together is on the basis of this spiritual relationship 
divinely effected, and by the members’ recognition of one an- 
other as being so related. 

"ExxAnota (ecclesia) is also used to designate the whole body 
of disciples or of local churches in a particular region, as in 
Acts 9:31, ‘‘So the church throughout all Judea, and Galilee, 
and Samaria had peace’’ (R. V.). In this use it seems to have 
a meaning identical with that of the universal church and applies 
in that sense to the Christians of that region. There is no evi- 
dence that the churches in those regions were bound together 
by any outward organization which differentiated them from 
other parts of the universal church. The term ‘‘church’’ is 
used at the present day of humanly organized denominational 
institutions, which usage is doubtless in accordance with the 
original sense of éxxAnota (ecclesia), but is entirely without 
Seriptural support. 

4. Relation of the Church and God’s Kingdom.—Predictions 0 f 
a coming kingdom of God are common in the Old Testament 
prophets. Jesus came announcing that the time was fulfilled 
and the establishment of that kingdom was at hand. He said 
much in his teaching about the kingdom. Those who are sub- 
jects of the spiritual kingdom of God and the membership of 
the church in its universal aspect, are identical, including all of 


510 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


God’s children. In the Gospels this spiritual society is called 
the ‘‘kingdom,’’ and is so designated one hundred. and. twelve 
times, while the term ‘‘church’’ is used. in but two. imstances. 
A reverse usage characterizes the epistles, ‘‘church’’ being men- 
tioned .one hundred and. twelve times, and the ‘‘kingdom’’ 
twenty-nine. times. 

Though the membership composing the kingdom and the 
church are identical, yet the two terms are not entirely identical 
in, meaning, but represent. different phases of that spiritual 
society. The term ‘‘kingdom’’ describes that society in rela- 
tion to, Christ, who rules over it. The term ‘‘ecclesia’’ empha- 
sizes another. aspect of it—the relationship of its members to 
one another as an assembly, or a spiritual. brotherhood... In 
either the kingdom. or the church all are included who have 
been regenerated. ‘‘Except a man be born. of water; and. of the 
Spirit, he ean not. enter into the kingdom of God’’ (John 3:5). 
The new birth also inducts.men into the family of God, which is 
the church (1 Tim. 3:15). 

Il. The Fact of Its Organization 

1. Theories of the Time of Its Organization.—Did Jesus intend 
that those who accepted his teaching should be joined together 
in a society, or was it rather his intention that the principles he 
propounded should result merely in the transformation of the 
lives of those who accepted them? If he intended that. his fol- 
lowers should be associated in an organization, when and by. what 
authority was such organization. effected? Those who deny the 
divine inspiration and unity of the Scriptures sometimes set the 
teachings of Jesus over against those of the writers of the 
epistles and affirm that Jesus did not intend an association of 
his followers, but. that this idea first arose among his disciples 
subsequently to his death, Some other religious teachers of the 
post-Reformation period, failing. to distinguish between the local 
and universal aspects of the church, have rejected. as unscrip- 
tural the idea of an organized church.,..Three principal theories 
have prevailed as to the time of the organization of the church 
and the authority to organize it. | 

The first theory denies that the church was organized during 
the apostolic period, affirming it existed only in germ then and 
was fully organized only during the patristic period or the first 
six Christian centuries. It assumes the Church Fathers were 


ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH dll 


inspired equally with the apostles in their teaching and acts, and 
that therefore the organization they effected was according to 
the will of God. It is the theory of an inspired church of 
Romanism, but: has.been. inconsistently. held. by. the Anglican 
Church. The theory is objectionable for different reasons, (1) 
The Scriptures clearly teach that the church was fully organized 
during the apostolic period. ,God intended that it should be in- 
creased in membership, but not that its form should be changed. 
(2) The form of organization varied greatly durmg the patristic 
period, from the simple local congregations of the second cen- 
tury with their elders and, deacons, to the fully developed. hier- 
archy of the fifth century with its metropolitans, diocesan 
bishops, and priests of lower orders. The latter could not. have 
been. a natural development from the former, A new principle 
of organization was introduced. (3) If the form of the organi- 
zation, of the church was to be decided by men after the apostolic 
period on the theory that those men were inspired as were the 
apostles, then there is no logical reason for assuming that such 
inspiration ceased. with the. patristic period. Consistency. re- 
quired the acceptance of the Romish doctrine of an inspired 
church to. supplement and interpret the Biblical revelation in 
all ages. But. all Protestants properly reject such a doctrine 
and. accept the Scriptures alone as divine revelation for. man- 
kind. 

The second theory of the authority for church organization 
is that God has not given and does not require a particular form 
of. organization of his church, but that it is entirely a matter of 
expediency to be determined. by the particular conditions and 
needs of a community of Christians. This is the theory held by 
most, of the Protestant denominations. It is unsound because it 
ignores the fact that Jesus organized his church during his 
personal ministry and through his especially inspired apostles. 
As the form of civil government is determinative of its effects 
on the life of the nation, so the form of. church organization 
effects the sentiments and character of the members. The apos- 
tasy of the early church was not first in false doctrinal state- 
ments, but in unscriptural church. organization. 

The third conception as to the authority in church organiza- 
tion and the time of it is that the church was organized by divine 
authority, its form being determined by Jesus and his divinely. 


512 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


inspired apostles, during the first century. No man may proper- 
ly attempt to change or set aside that form which was then 
given. 

2. The Fact Stated and Implied in the Bible-—That Jesus in- 
tended to build a church he clearly stated in the words, ‘‘I will 
build my church’’ (Matt. 16:18). During hig personal minis- 
try he regenerated those who believed on him. In regeneration 
they were all made to possess the one divine Spirit by which 
they became related to one another as members of the spiritual 
body of Christ and to him as its head. This was organization. 
Shortly after the foregoing words of Jesus were spoken the 
church was frequently mentioned by the inspired writers as 
already existing (Acts 5:11; 8:1; 11:26). Much is said of it 
as an existing institution in the epistles. The day of Pentecost 
is often pointed to as the time of the organization of the church. 
Viewed as a body of people brought together through the opera- 
tion of the Holy Spirit and for the first time established in 
definite church relationship, this is true. But the church existed 
in embryonic form, we may say, before Pentecost, for it is cer- 
tain that men pressed into the kingdom of God from the days of 
John the Baptist. ‘‘The law and the prophets were until John: 
since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man 
presseth into it’’ (Luke 16:16). Membership in the kingdom 
and church are identical, the result of regeneration; therefore 
during Christ’s personal ministry men were becoming members 
of the church, the universal body of Christ, although as yet that 
body was not exhibited to the world in concrete, organic form. 

But in the apostolic period, from Pentecost on, there was not 
only an organization of the spiritual body or universal church, 
but the local churches were also organized. This is implied by 
many statements and allusions of the Scriptures concerning the 
affairs of those congregations. They had stated meetings (Acts 
20:7; Heb. 10:25). They had elections (Acts 6:5; 2 Cor. 8: 
19). They had officers, bishops and deacons (Acts 20:17; Phil. 
1:1). They had government (1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:17). They 
had a recognized membership (Acts 4: 23; 1 Cor. 11:33). They 
gave congregational contributions (Rom. 15:26; 1 Cor. 16:1). 
They kept a register of widows (1 Tim. 5:9). They exercised 
discipline (1 Cor. 5:13; 2 Cor. 7:11). All of these are im- 
possible without a measure of organization, However, organiza- 


ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH 513 


tion does not necessarily require written records, lists of mem- 
bers, formal choice of officers, or formal accepting of members. 
Neither must we assume that the local churches were fully 
organized in all these respects from their beginning at Jeru- 
salem. The New Testament record rather leads to the belief that 
the completed form of their organization was gradually attained 
as the need arose. Yet they were organized under the guidance 
of divinely inspired apostles through whom also the Scriptures 
were given. As doctrinal truth was gradually revealed as oc- 
casion required, so was the organization of the church gradually 
effected as the need for it arose. 

3. Figurative Representations of the Church.—The fact of the 
organization of the church is definitely implied in the principal 
figures used of it. In Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 it is 
represented as being like the physical human body. Individual 
Christians are described as being workers together and helpers 
in the work of the body as are the eye, the hand, or the foot in 
the human body. Nothing can be more nearly parallel to the 
spiritual body of Christ than is the physical body with its sev- 
eral members in which one spirit dwells and over which it rules 
so they function together in absolute harmony. 

The church is also represented under the figure of a house or 
building (1 Tim. 8:15). In it God’s people are described as 
‘‘lively stones’’ ‘‘built up a spiritual house’’ (1 Pet. 2:5). 
They are said to be ‘‘framed together’’ and ‘‘builded together 
for an habitation of God’’ (Eph. 2:21, 22). To build together 
is to organize. Therefore the church is organized. It is also 
represented by other figures which imply it is organized, as a 
flock under one shepherd (John 10), and a city (Heb. 12: 22), 
and a family (Eph. 3:15). 

Ill. Nature of Its Organization 

1. Different Forms of Church Organization——-Among the vari- 
ous denominational churches four distinct forms of organization 
are found. They may be described as (1) monarchical, (2) 
oligarchical, (3) republican, and (4) democratic; or they may 
be more specifically designated respectively as the papal, epis- 
copal, presbyterial, and congregational. 

Monarchical government is a rule by one alone who has su- 
preme power to legislate and act in all the functions of the 
government. The Roman Catholic Church, with its pope, who 


514 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


assumes to be infallible, is the principal representative of this 
form of church government. However, certain smaller and more 
recent bodies have practically, if not professedly, been so goy- 
erned. The oligarchical is a government by a few. Episcopal 
church government is of this class in that the authority resides 
in the bishops, a self-perpetuating body which is distinct from 
and virtually independent of the local congregation. The bishops 
are a class of higher clergy who exercise authority over the 
elders and deacons. Examples of this form of church organiza- 
tion are the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the United States especially, and also the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in certain of its aspects. A republican govern- 
ment is one in which the ruling power is vested in representa- 
tives elected by the people. The government of the Presby- 
terian Church is of this class. The congregation elects the pas- 
tor and elders who compose the session, delegates from several 
sessions compose the presbytery, delegates from the several pres- 
byteries compose the synod, and delegates from these synods 
constitute the general assembly, which is the supreme authority. 
It is a form of government built upon the principle of repre- 
sentation. A democratic government in the strict sense is one in 
which the whole body of the people rule themselves directly. 
The congregational form of church government is of this type. 
No power is recognized as superior to that of the local church. 
This necessarily excludes any larger organization than that of 
the local congregation. Examples of this form of church organi- 
zation are the Independents of England, the Congregational 
churches in the United States, and the Baptist churches gener- 
ally. 

All these forms of church organization and government are 
self-consistent, but they all proceed on a purely human basis. 
Because the New Testament church is divinely organized and 
ruled none of the foregoing systems can of themselves be that 
set forth in the Scriptures. 

2. The Church Divinely Organized—Any true idea of the 
form and nature of the organization of the New Testament 
church must agree with all the New Testament statements bear- 
ing on the subject. It is important that we avoid stressing one 
aspect of its organization set forth in a particular text of Serip- 
ture to the exclusion of another aspect represented in other 


ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH 515 


texts. No truth concerning the true church is more certainly 
taught in the Bible than that it is divinely organized. In his 
first mention of the church, Jesus said, ‘‘I will build my church’’ 
(Matt. 16:18). This is equal to our saying the church of Christ 
has been divinely organized. It is his because he built it. To 
crganize is to induct and relate the members of a whole to one 
another and to it. The addition of members was not only divine- 
ly accomplished in the original constitution of the church, but 
such was the only mode of induction subsequently. ‘*By one 
Spirit are we all baptized [inducted] into one body’’ (1 Cor. 
12:13). ‘‘But now hath God set the members every one of 
them in the body, as it hath pleased him’’ (v.18). Regeneration 
is the method by which the Spirit of God inducts or sets mem- 
bers in the church. If the church is composed of the entire 
company of the regenerate and is the family of God, as we have 
defined it to be, in the very nature of things it must be divinely 
organized in respect to its membership. 

But there is also another aspect of organization of the 
church—the constituting of officers in it. The first preachers of 
the gospel were divinely called and qualified for their sacred 
work (Mark 3:14). As much may be said of the apostle Paul 
(Gal. 1:1). All other ministers of Christ are likewise divinely 
appointed. ‘‘God hath set some in the church, first apostles, 
secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then 
gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues’’ 
(1 Cor. 12:28). The sense of this entire twelfth chapter is that 
men do their particular work in the church because of spiritual 
gifts which they have received of God. Elders do not have gifts 
because they are elders, but are elders because their divinely giv- 
en gifts constitute them such. The same truth is taught in Eph. 4: 
‘“When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and 
gave gifts unto men. ... And he gave some, apostles; and some, 
prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teach- 
ers’’ (vs. 8, 11). With such a sense of the constituting of men 
officers in the true church it is apparent that only God can 
make one an officer. Therefore the church is divinely organized 
both as to the induction of members and the constitution of 
officers. What is here stated pertains to the universal church, 
but these divine operations are also the ground of all local 
church organization. 


516 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


3. The Human Agency in Church Organization.—A human agen- 
ey must be recognized in the organization of the local congrega- 
tion. The proofs already given that it was an organized body 
imply that it had a definite membership which was known as 
such to the members. This is true of the local chureh as it can 
not be of the universal church. What, then, is the human func- 
tion in relation to the organization of the local congregation. 
In seeking to determine this it is necessary to avoid any view 
that conflicts with the fundamental truth already shown to be 
clearly set forth in the Scriptures—that the church is divinely 
organized. If the universal church is divinely organized, the 
local church, which is but a part of it, must be also divinely 
organized. But if God organizes the local church, then it is not 
organized by men. If God constitutes men officers, other men 
ean do no more than recognize what God has done. If God 
makes men members by miraculously converting them, other 
members can do no more than recognize such as fellow members 
of the church. The association, then, of members of the uni- 
versal church in the local congregation involves on their part 
the principle of recognition as to the human connection with 
church organization. Men recognize what God has done. The 
recognition of elders seems to have been by a formal process of 
laying on of hands and prayer in ordination. But there is no 
proof that members were recognized or accepted by congrega- 
tions by any formal process or official act. 

All the saved and only the saved in a particular community 
are properly members of the local congregation. Normally the 
recognized membership of the local congregation is identical 
with the number of the saved in a particular locality. But be- 
eause of human fallibility, either on the part of the individual 
in knowing his duty of associating himself with a local chureh 
or on the part of the congregation in discerning who are saved 
and who are not, error is possible even in the most spiritual 
church. Examples of this are the recognition for a time of two 
false members, Ananias and Sapphira, by the church in Jeru- 
salem; of Simon the Sorcerer by the church of Samaria; of cer- 
tain unworthy persons by the church at Corinth; and of an 
unworthy member, by the name of Diotrephes, who loved to have 
the preeminence, by a church which John mentioned. Yet God 
is pleased that mistakes in accepting unworthy persons should 


ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH 517 


be rectified. When Peter discerned that Ananias and Sapphira 
were dishonest, or when he found Simon desiring to purchase 
the gift of God with money, he promptly rejected them. Paul 
likewise urged the Corinthians to dissociate themselves from 
those among them who walked disorderly. 

But there is a possibility of a local church failing to accept 
one whom God has accepted. This was true of the church at 
Jerusalem in relation to Paul when he returned to them after 
his conversion at Damascus and endeavored to join himself to 
them, Only when he was especially recommended to them by 
Barnabas did they accept him. 

But there is yet another aspect of the human agency in the 
organization of the local church to be considered. Because of the 
social aspect of such an organization it follows that he who is 
to be recognized by a congregation as one of its members must 
first have intentions of associating himself with them, Paul 
‘‘assayed to join himself to the disciples’’ at Jerusalem. Only 
when one voluntarily associates himself with a local church as 
a member and is accepted or recognized as such by that church 
can he properly be said to be a member, even though he be 
saved and a resident of the immediate community where that 
church meets. This may be shown by a few examples. Suppose 
three men are converted in a revival-meeting at a certain local 
church. The minister urges their regular attendance at the 
services. But the first states he is a resident of another city 
and will worship with the local church of God in the city where 
he resides. The second, though truly converted, is untaught 
religiously and therefore states he will worship at the Roman 
Catholic Church where his family are members. The third 
agrees to worship with the congregation where he was converted, 
which he does and is recognized by the congregation there as 
one of their number. Evidently the first two men are not mem- 
bers of that congregation even though it much desires to accept 
them as such. The membership of the third man in that con- 
eregation is determined by his definitely associating himself with 
them and their recognition of him as one of them, even though 
neither the associating nor the recognizing is by a formal act. 
Or as a further example, let us suppose a Christian man moves 
into a certain city where there are two local churches of God. 
Though he lives much nearer to the first, yet he always worships 


518 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


at the second because his presence is more needed there. He 
not only associates himself with that church as a member, but 
they recognize him as such. No recognition of him as a mem- 
ber on the part of the first church could constitute him a mem- 
ber there as long as he associates himself with the other congre- 
vation. Every Christian is a member of the universal church, 
but not of every local congregation. But no one is properly a 
member of a local congregation who is not a member of the uni- 
versal church. The latter is the ground for the former. 


IV. Organization of Operative Agencies 

1. Operative Agencies Needed in the Church.—W ith a well-de- 
veloped state of society and an elaborately organized govern- 
ment as was that of Imperial Rome, it ig not surprizing that 
associations of various kinds should have been prevalent in the 
first Christian century. According to writers of that period 
associations were common in every aspect of life as among civil- 
ized peoples today. Cooperation among many requires such 
organizations. The early churches found need of cooperation to 
accomplish certain results and a consequent need of the organi- 
zation of agencies to represent the whole church in those en- 
deavors. The church at Jerusalem had certain financial admin- 
istrations to be cared for. On the recommendation of the apos- 
tles they proceeded in an orderly manner to elect seven properly 
qualified men ag a financial committee to attend to this. business 
(Acts 6). Other examples are the committee sent by the church 
at Antioch to Jerusalem to inquire of the apostles there concern- 
ing the observance of the law (Acts 15:2), or the committee 
appointed by the Gentile churches to bear their gift to the poor 
saints at Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:19, 23). In the 
brief and partial history given in the New Testament of the 
apostolic church but few instances are mentioned of the organi- 
zation of such committees, but from what is stated it is evident 
the churches organized them whenever they were needed for the 
efficient prosecution of the work, and such agencies were prob- 
ably common. 

Every local congregation will find need of organizing such 
agencies as the field of its operation broadens. As new branches 
of work are undertaken more and more elaborate agencies of 
this sort will be needed. If the local church property is to be 


ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH 519 


held and controlled by the whole congregation, ag it should be, 
there must be trustees duly appointed in an orderly and legal 
manner. If benevolent work among the poor is to be done by 
the church in an efficient manner a duly appointed committee 
must be given the responsibility of collecting and disbursing 
such funds. If the local church is to undertake systematic re- 
ligious educational work, by way of a Sunday-school or other- 
Wise, efficiency demands an organization sufficient to insure 
orderliness in the school and in the curriculum. Besides regu- 
lar operative organizations in the local church there will be 
need of the appointment of special agencies for special opera- 
tions such as the erection of a church edifice. The larger the 
number of units cooperating, the greater the need of the organ- 
izing of representative agencies. When the local churches of a 
region or of an entire country undertake cooperative effort they 
have special need of agencies through which to operate. Mission- 
ary societies organized by and representative of the local 
churches of the country are examples of such general agencies. 
As surely as the Jerusalem church needed the financial com- 
mittee composed of the seven, and even more surely, if many 
individual Christians and several congregations are efficiently to 
cooperate in the supporting of missionaries to unevangelized 
regions, the constituting of such an agency is imperative. These 
organizations should be constituted by all those whom they repre- 
sent or by representatives of the latter. Similar general church 
agencies are needed for the publication of religious literature, 
the conducting of schools for the training of ministers, and the 
controlling of church property used for general chureh gather- 
ings. 

2. Relation of These Agencies to the Church But what is the 
nature of these agencies and their relationship to the organiza- 
tion of the church? The distinction is clear between the organi- 
zation of the church and organizations effected by the church. 
The distinction is similar to the difference between the relation- 
ship between members of a human family and a business organi- 
zation effected by the members of that family. It is true that 
when a local church engages in appointing such an agency it 
must resolve itself into a deliberative body, and it may for good 
reason not extend the franchise at such times to some who are 
truly members of the church if its interests require discrimina- 


520 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


tion in this connection against some because of youthfulness or 
for other reasons. For this reason it can not be said that the 
local church in the full sense organizes itself for business. 

Operative agencies should be organized only as they are 
needed to accomplish the work of the church. They are not an 
end in themselves, but a means to an end. Therefore they 
should be no more elaborate than the need requires. 


CHAPTER II 


GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 


I. Officers of the Church 


The church ig represented as having various classes of offi- 
cers who are its overseers and who are said in some sense to 
rule over it. Our views of the government of the church are 
determined in a measure by what the functions of those officers 
are found to be. 

1. Classes of Officers.—The officers of the New Testament 
church are described as being of different classes. Of Christ it 
is said, ‘‘ He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, 
evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting 
of the saints, for the work of the ministry’’ (Eph. 4:11, 12). 
In writing to the Philippians the Apostle mentions their officers 
as ‘‘bishops and deacons’’ (Phil. 1:1). Also he so designates 
them in 1 Tim. 3:1-13. Here are at least six different classes 
of church officers. These may be classified as extraordinary and 
ordinary. The former class are those whose labors do not re- 
quire that they be associated with a particular congregation, 
but whose work may be interecongregational or apart from local 
congregations entirely. The latter class, the ordinary officers, 
are those who are necessary to the proper organization of the 
local church. The extraordinary officers consist of apostles, 
prophets, evangelists, and may include teachers. 

The apostles were originally twelve in number, probably to 
correspond to the twelve tribes of Israel, to whom they were 
originally and especially sent. Matthias was only the successor 
of Judas Iscariot. Paul was later added as a thirteenth apostle 
whose special duty was to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. In 
defending his apostolic authority the apostle Paul represents 
certain qualifications as necessary to those who fill the office. 
An apostle must have been sent forth by Christ in person (Acts 
1:24; Gal. 1:1). He must have seen the Lord in person after 
he was raised from the dead in order that he may be a witness 
to that great truth (Acts 1: 22, 23; 1 Cor. 9:1). He must have 
received the gospel directly from Christ without any human 
intervention (Gal. 1:11-20). To these thirteen apostles of 


Christ was committed the responsibility of the original establish- 
521 


522 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ment of the church and of Christianity. Their office was pecu- 
liar to them and had a special purpose. When they had accom- 
plished that purpose the office ceased with their death. Because 
the office was not perpetuated, there is no ground for the as- 
sumption that prelatic bishops are the successors of the apostles. 
It is true the term ‘‘apostle’’ is used in a lower sense of those 
who first carry the gospel message to a non-Christian people. 
The original meaning of the term ‘‘apostle’’ is one sent forth, 
as an ambassador is sent by a ruler to be his representative to 
another nation. The original apostles were peculiar in that 
they were sent to plant Christianity in the whole world. But 
those who first carry the Christian religion to non-Christian 
countries are properly called apostles in a secondary sense of 
the term. All pioneer missionaries are apostles in this sense. 
But in such a sense of apostle no distinct office in the church is 
designated. 

Prophets of the apostolic church sometimes predicted future 
events as did those of ancient Israel. Agabus was especially 
used in such prediction (Acts 11:28; 21:11). But the chief 
function of the New Testament prophets was to speak the mes- 
sage of God under the special inspiration of the Holy Spirit. 
They spoke ‘‘unto men to edification, exhortation, and com- 
LOT 

Their function was principally that of preaching. A spe- 
cial need of the revelation of truth through such specially in- 
spired men was important before the New Testament Scriptures 
were given as it is not to us who have the full revelation of the 
Scriptures; yet there is no proper ground for saying this office 
eeased with the Apostolic Age, for there is doubtless a need for 
its exercise at present as for other supernatural manifestations. 

Evangelists are itinerant ministers or missionaries. Apostles 
in the secondary sense may be included in this class, though all 
evangelists may not properly be called apostles in the lower 
sense. Evangelists are men who have been called to the gospel 
ministry, but who are without a permanent local charge and 
who travel from place to place preaching for short intervals to 
establish congregations or endeavoring to convert men by preach- 
ing the gospel where no congregations exist. Though the word 
is found but three times in the New Testament (Acts 21:8: 
2 Tim. 4:5; Eph. 4:11), yet the names of several are men- 


GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 523 


tioned who were evidently evangelists, such as Philip, Timothy, 
Titus, Silas, Apollos, and Luke. Some of these traveled or co- 
operated with the apostle Paul. The office of evangelist is perma- 
nent in the church. 

Teachers are ministers who exercise a special function of in- 
structing men in the truths of religion. The purpose of teaching 
is to enlighten the intellect rather than especially to move men 
to action. This is an important office. Jesus occupied himself 
largely with ‘‘teaching’’ the people, as is stated and as is evident 
from the nature of his recorded discourses. There were those in 
the apostolic churches who had special gifts for such work and 
they may or may not represent a distinct class in the ministry. 
Teaching appears to be a function of the pastor in Eph. 4: 11, 
but a distinct office in Rom. 12:7. A pastor or evangelist may 
be a teacher as an apostle may be a pastor or evangelist. 

The ordinary or regular officers of the church may be prop- 
erly designated as (1) elders, bishops, or pastors, and (2) dea- 
eons. The qualifications of these are especially enumerated in 
the pastoral epistles. Paul recognizes them as distinct classes 
in writing to the Philippians. ‘‘To all the saints in Christ Je- 
sus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons’”’ (1:1). 

2. Pastors, or Bishops.—The preachers, or leaders of the local 
churches, are designated by various terms in the New Testament, 
as elders, bishops, or pastors. All three of these terms are used 
of the same office. This is denied by prelatists, who in addition 
to elders and deacons, the two classes of church officers recog- 
nized by others, distinguish a third and higher class of officers 
in their bishops. On what ground does prelacy make such a 
distinction? If the distinction between elders and bishops does 
not rest on Biblical grounds, do the Scriptures afford proof that 
they are identical? These questions iead us to inquire concern- 
ing the usage of the original terms. 

Of the two terms, ‘‘elder’’ and ‘‘bishop,’’ by far the more 
common is the former, which is the English rendering of the 
Greek, moeoBitegos (presbuteros). It is used with reference 
to church officers thirty-one times and by five different writers 
in the New Testament, while the term éxioxomos (episkopos), 
bishop, is found but six times. Therefore the preponderance of 
the use of the former over the latter is great. Elder is a Jewish 
term of Greek derivation. The Jews used it of the officers of 


524 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


their synagogs. The use of the term ‘‘elder’’ by the apostolic 
congregations to designate their leaders was very natural, due 
to the first Christian assemblies and the apostles themselves be- 
ing Jewish. It was the most expressive term the language af- 
forded. It was used of all preachers, even of the apostles them- 
selves. They so apply it to themselves in three instances (1 Pet. 
5:11; 2 John 1; 3 John 1). Whatever may have been a preach- 
er’s particular kind of ministry, whether apostle, prophet, evan- 
gelist, pastor, or teacher, he was an elder, or presbyter, which is 
merely the anglicized form of the Greek term smgeoButegos 
(presbuteros). Elder indicates the rank of the office, while 
other terms such as evangelist, pastor, teacher, and also bishop 
denote particular functions connected with it. 

The term ‘‘bishop’’ is the rendering of the Greek éxtoxom0sg 
(episkopos) and means overseer. It is so translated in Acts 20: 
28. ‘‘Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, 
over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers 
[Exioxdmous (episkopous) ],’’ or bishops. There is no record of its 
use by the apostolic church of its ministers until a comparatively 
late date. Its earliest use is in the preceding quotation from Paul 
when addressing the elders of Ephesus. It was later used of the 
elders at Philippi (Phil. 1:1), in the pastoral epistles (1 Tim. 
3:1, 2; Titus 1:7), and by Peter of Christ as bishop of souls 
(1 Pet. 2:25). Only as the churches became more exclusively 
Gentile in membership and consequently more familiar with 
strictly Greek usage is ‘‘bishop’’ used to designate elders. The 
magistrates of the early Greek Colonies were called éxtoxozot 
(episkopot). It was as natural for the Grecian Christians to 
eall their leaders éxtoxonot (episkopoi) as for English-speaking 
Christians to call them overseers when it is desirable to denote 
them in relation to their function of directing. 

That elders and bishops are not distinct classes of officers, 
but that the terms are used interchangeably, is evident from a 
review of their use in the New Testament. In Acts 20:17 we 
read that Paul ‘‘sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the 
church.’’ In verse 28 he tells them the Holy Ghost had made 
them bishops [éxtoxonot (episkopot)]. Here Paul identifies bish- 
ops with elders. The supposition is not admissible that a partic- 
ular person is referred to as the bishop over the other elders, 
for Paul is addressing them all. Also the plural form of the 


GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 525 


term is used, which excludes the prelatical idea of one bishop 
over the elders of a local church or diocese. Paul addresses, 
‘* All the saints in- Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the 
bishops and deacons’’ (Phil. 1:1). The plural number here is 
exclusive of the idea that in this church one bishop ruled over 
a plurality of elders. Also the fact that there were a plurality 
of bishops in this one local church and no mention is made of 
elders while deacons are mentioned is strong reason for believing 
that to the apostles the terms are interchangeable. He does use 


them interchangeably in Titus 1:5-7. ‘‘Ordain elders in every 
city.... If any be blameless... . For a bishop must be blame- 
less.’’ In 1 Pet. 5:1, 2 the elders are exhorted ‘‘ taking the over- 


sight,’’ or acting as bishops. 

That the elders and bishops of the apostolic churches were 
identical is not only found to be a truth of Seripture by opposers 
of prelacy, but is also admitted by its supporters, and especially 
by the early church fathers. Among those of the latter class 
may be mentioned Jerome and Augustine. Conybeare and How- 
son, themselves prelatists, say, ‘‘These terms are used in the New 
Testament as equivalents; the former (€xioxomo0s) [episkopos | 
denoting (as its meaning, overseer, implies) the duties; the lat- 
ter (moeoputeoos) [presbuteros] the rank of the office’’ (Vol. 1, p. 
434). Dean Alford also admits, ‘‘The title émtoxonos (episkopos) , 
as applied to one person superior to the xoeoBiteoo. (presby- 
teret), and answering to our bishops, appears to have been un- 
known in apostolic times.’’ With the foregoing evidence that 
elders and bishops were identical in the apostolic church, there 
is no room in the government of the New Testament church for 
prelacy or any kind of rule which requires grades in the minis- 
try by which some exercise authority over others. 

One other important designation of ministers in the New 
Testament church—pastors—remains to be considered. The term 
‘‘pastor,’’ from moiunv (poimen), signifies one who feeds a flock. 
The function is practically identical with that of teaching, and 
in the list of classes of ministerial functions in Eph. 4:11 pas- 
tors and teachers are regarded as identical. The pastor is iden- 
tical with the elder or bishop. The elders of Ephesus, who are 
also said to be bishops, are exhorted to ‘‘feed [zowtatvetv 
(poimainein)| the church of God’’ (Acts 20:28). The term 
pastor, lke bishop, is synonymous with elder, and like bishop 


526 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


differs from elder in that it denotes a function of the office while 
elder denotes its rank, After discussing these and other less 
important designations of the minister, W. H. H. Marsh says, 
‘‘Of the eight terms defined, elder seems to be the only one 
specifically denoting the ministry of the word apart from fune- 
tion and relation. All the others seem to refer much more 
closely to functions and relations than to the title of the office 
te which they belong’’ (The New Testament Church, p. 477). 

The duties of the pastor are as follows: (1) To preach and 
teach the Word of God. Paul exhorted the elders of Ephesus 
to follow his example in this respect. ‘‘Apt to teach’’ is one of 
the qualifications for the office as described by Paul. (2) To 
administer the ordinances. In the Great Commission the com- 
mand to those who preach the gospel is also to baptize. Paul 
baptized some of the members of the Corinthian church. Philip 
baptized the Ethiopian. There igs no evidence in the Scriptures 
that any but ministers ever baptized. (3) The government and 
spiritual oversight of the church. The term elder denotes a 
spiritual ruler. A bishop is one who has the oversight of others. 
A pastor is a shepherd and is responsible to guide, feed, and pro- 
tect the flock. The writer to the Hebrews charges them, ‘‘ Obey 
them that have the rule over you’’ (Heb. 13:17). He presides 
in the assembly of the local church. 

3. Deacons.—The questions which here present themselves 
for consideration are relative to the nature of the office and the 
work of the deacon. That deacons constitute a distinct class of 
church officers is clear in the New Testament (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 
3:1-13). But is the deacon’s work of a spiritual nature or does 
it consist in caring merely for the temporal and material in- 
terests of the church? What is his relation to the elder and to 
the congregation? We can best understand the nature of the 
work of the deacon if we first understand what is the meaning 
of the term ‘‘deacon.’’ This word occurs only five times in the 
English New Testament (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 10, 12, 13). 
It is not a translation of the Greek word Stdxovos (diakonos), 
but is this Greek word anglicized and transferred. In the Greek 
Testament, where the word occurs seventy-one times either in 
its noun or verbal form, it always carries with it the idea of 
service, help, subordination. In classical usage the Greek word 
in its verbal form means, according to Liddel and Scott, ‘‘to 


GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 527 


) 


wait on, serve, do service.’’ The Greek word is often used for 
servant either bond or hired. A deacon, then, is a helper, and 
the word carries with it the idea of service, help, and subordi- 
nation. 

The deacons’ work is to assist or help the pastors of the con- 
gregations. ‘The apostolic church was a very simple organiza- 
tion. It had its preachers who had the oversight of the congre- 
gations, and who were variously designated according to the 
functions of their office as pastors, bishops, or elders. The dif- 
ferent persons who assisted them in any phase of their duties 
were deacons or helpers. These were not a specially appointed 
‘‘board,’’ but were those who had the ability and disposition to 
assist the elders. Atdwovos (diakonos) was the word in the 
Greek commonly used to designate those who thus served or 
assisted; therefore these servants of the churches and helpers of 
the pastors were called deacons. Doubtless at first the word was 
not used in a technical sense, or to designate those in an office. 
The functions of the office of deacon are well expressed by the 
word ‘‘helps’’ in the list of spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. 12: 28. 
Some persons are not pastors in the full sense, yet they have 
divinely given qualifications that make them excellent helpers 
for the pastors. These are deacons. They are often called 
‘fassistant pastors’’ or ‘‘spiritual workers.’’ 

On the ground of the meaning of the term used to designate 
the office, it is proper to regard the work of deacons as being as 
great in variety as is that of the pastor. In whatever sphere the 
elder needs help these may help. If there is need of their serv- 
ices in the financial interests of the church, in caring for the 
poor, or in other temporal interests of the church, these are 
properly aspects of their work. But they may also properly 
assist the pastor in preaching, teaching, praying for those in 
need of physical or spiritual help from God, or in other func- 
tions pertaining to the ministry. 

The work of deacons has not uncommonly been assumed to 
be the administration of the financial and material affairs of the 
church. The seven men appointed by the Jerusalem church are 
cited as evidence that such is the specific duty of deacons. But 
that these men were deacons is only an assumption entirely with- 
out Seriptural support. They are nowhere called deacons in 
the Bible. Luke mentions them in Acts 21:8, twenty-five years 


928 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


after their selection, which was certainly long after deacons had 
become common in the apostolic churches, but he does not refer 
to them as the seven deacons, as he naturally would have done 
had they been regarded as such. He simply calls them ‘‘the 
seven.’’ They were merely a business committee appointed for 
a temporary need. Some of these may have been merely de- 
pendable, devout lay members such as a local church might 
elect on a board of trustees. Some of them, apart from their 
election on this committee, may have possessed gifts and have 
done such service as constituted them deacons in the usual sense, 
but it is certain that at least two otf these seven men, Stephen 
and Philip, were among the greatest preachers of the apostolic 
period, ranking with Paul and Barnabas. One early church 
writer states that they were all of the Seventy; therefore were 
elders. These seven can be regarded as deacons only in the broad 
sense of the term that they served the church and assisted the 
apostles by relieving them of certain work of a business nature. 
This furnishes no ground for confounding their service with the 
distinct class of church officers of whom Paul writes. Neither 
is such ground furnished by the word dtaxovia (diakonia), ren- 
dered service (Acts 6:1), which might be used of the service 
rendered by any one. The work these seven men were appointed 
to perform can not properly be regarded as an example of the 
specific duties of the New Testament deacon. 

The list of qualifications for the office of deacon given in 1 
Tim. 3: 8-18 does not furnish any light as to what are the func- 
tions of the office. The qualities there given have to do wholly 
with the character and fitness of the man who fills the office, and 
are such as should be possessed by any man whom the church 
trusts to do any important service. The qualifications of dea- 
cons as described in that chapter are almost identical with those 
of the elder. If they proved anything as to the nature of the 
work of the deacon, it would be that his work is similar to that 
of the elder. 

II. Nature of the Government of the Church 

1. A Divine and a Human Aspect.—The functions of govern- 
ment are legislative, judicial, and executive. An absolute ruler 
combines all of these in his administration of his government. 
The government of the New Testament church is an absolute 
monarchy as far as the source of authority is concerned. Christ 


GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 529 


ig supreme ruler of it. Of him it was predicted, ‘‘The govern- 
ment shall be upon his shoulder’’ (Isa. 9:6). He is ‘‘the head 
over all things to the church’’ (Eph. 1:22). All governmental 
power is from him. Any ruling authority in the church that 
does not proceed from him is an usurped authority. The laws 
by which it is governed are divinely given. The Holy Spirit is 
the one who adds members to the church and he is the one who 
euts them off when they sin. He it is who calls, qualifies, and 
sends forth his ministers. ‘‘The Holy Ghost said, Separate me 
Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 
... So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed’’ 
(Acts 18:2-4). Though he employed human instruments as a 
medium through which to send them forth, yet they were ‘‘sent 
forth by the Holy Ghost.’’ Christ did not cease to govern his 
church when he died on the cross, but still lives and rules his 
church today through the operation of the Holy Spirit. The 
divine element is basic in the government of the church, and no 
view of church government which disregards it can be correct. 
All else must be conformed to this fundamental idea. 

But as was shown concerning the organization of the church, 
there is not only a divine but also a human aspect in the gov- 
ernment of the church. This is clearly recognized by the apostle 
Paul. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double 
honor, especially they who labor in word and doctrine’”’ (1 Tim. 
5:17). ‘‘Remember them which have the rule over you, who 
have spoken unto you the word of God’’ (Heb. 13:7). ‘‘Obey 
them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for 
they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that 
they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is un- 
profitable for you’’ (v. 17). The same is implied in those texts 
which represent the elders as having the oversight or being di- 
rectors of congregations (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). The nature 
of this rule or oversight is implied in a measure in the fore- 
going texts. They did not make laws for the church, but spoke 
to them ‘‘the word of God.’’ They were not lords over God’s 
people, but were divinely appointed to care for and guide them, 
and were responsible to God for the salvation of the souls of 
those under them. Whatever authority they had was only such 
as had been delegated to them by Christ. 

Church government includes, then, both a divine and a hu- 


530 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


man aspect. It is effected by a cooperation of the divine and 
the human. An illustration of the relation of the divine and 
human operation in church government is to be found in the 
giving of the Scriptures. The human writers used their minds 
and, though seeking to do God’s will, they functioned unhamp- 
ered. Likewise the Spirit of God accomplishes his will in ruling 
his church through human instrumentality. The Spirit not only 
uses the elders especially, in ruling the church, but also operates 
through the various members of the congregation for the same 
purpose. The sending out of Barnabas and Saul was by the 
elders at Antioch at the direction of the Spirit. But when a 
certain member of the church at Corinth had sinned the whole 
congregation were made responsible for the exercise of dis- 
cipline. Government by the whole congregation is also implied 
in the words, “‘If he neglect to hear the church’’ (Matt. 18:17). 
Also in discoursing concerning spiritual gifts Paul allows that 
‘‘all may prophesy’’ or receive ‘‘a revelation’’ for the congre- 
gation even if he is not an elder. These are important elements 
in true church government. Therefore in its human aspect the 
eovernment of the church is both presbyterian and congrega- 
tional. 

Because of the natural fallibility of the human instruments 
employed in church government, errors may be made. Instead 
of the Word of God, commandments of men may be preached. 
The church may for a time reject those whom God has accepted, 
as in the case of the newly converted Saul and the church at 
Jerusalem. No system or lack of system can entirely eliminate 
such errors. But to the extent members of the church keep 
filled with the Spirit, man-rule will be excluded. 

2. Nature of Ministerial Authority—Because Christ is the sole 
source of authority in the church, therefore whatever authority 
elders may have is from him. But the authority they have is not 
of that sort on which human government rests, and which in- 
heres merely in the position to which one has been appointed. 
Neither is the authority of that driving, compelling kind that is 
common to human government. The authority which Christ 
delegates to ministers is of the same nature as that which he 
exercises directly in his dealings with men. He does not com- 
pel men to serve him, but influences them to do so by mani- 
festations of goodness and love. Ministerial authority has its 


2 


GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH o3l 


basis in the power of elders to influence God’s people. This 
power is determined by the gifts which God has bestowed upon 
the elders. Though all ministers are of equal grade officially, 
yet because some have greater gifts than others their influence is 
wider and they consequently have greater ruling authority. 
One’s gifts may be such that he will wield a proper authority 
or rule, not merely over one congregation, but over all the 
churches in a large region. This was true of the apostle Paul 
especially. Such a view of ministerial authority does not ex- 
clude the power of discipline. When the Word of God has been 
faithfully preached and one professing to be a member of the 
church wilfully disobeys it, it is the duty of the minister and 
the entire congregation, if he disregards all proper efforts to 
save him from his error, to count him ‘‘as an heathen man and 
a publican.’’ But no penalty can properly be inflicted by them 
upon him. 

There is another aspect of ministerial authority which does 
not result directly from one’s divine gifts and eall, but rather 
from the call or recognition of the local church which the min- 
ister serves. - It is evident that an elder of a particular local 
congregation has certain ruling power in that particular congre- 
gation which another elder from a congregation near by who 
might be visiting the first-mentioned congregation does not pos- 
sess, even though both are equally endowed with spiritual gifts. 
The elder of the first congregation has authority to call or pre- 
side at its meetings, to decide who shall and who shall not preach 
from its pulpit, and to direct the work of the congregation. It 
is an aspect of ministerial authority which proceeds directly 
from the local church by their recognition of him as their elder, 
whether that recognition is given him by a formal ordination 
or informally by general assent. Doubtless normally such 
recognition of an elder by a local church should be and is on 
the ground of spiritual gifts he possesses. That the government 
of the church is more properly deseribed as divine government 
than charismatic government is certain from the fact that much 
of it is effeeted directly by Christ in relation to the individual 
members as well as through the giving of special gifts to elders 
or others. The government of the church is divine and is charis- 
matie to the extent that it is effected through gifts given to men. 

3. Number and Choice of Local Church Officers—Though all 


532 CILRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the members of the church possess spiritual gifts, yet some pos- 
sess gifts of such a nature as to constitute them officers of the 
church. These officers, including elders and deacons, are recog- 
nized in the Scriptures as distinct from the members in general 
(Acts 20:17; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-13). They were divinely 
constituted as officers, but their relation to a particular congre- 
gation was dependent upon two things—(1) their association 
with it and (2) its recognition of them in their official capacity 
as over it, much as one who is truly saved and a member of the 
universal church becomes a member of a particular local con- 
gregation only by his associating himself with it and its recog- 
nition of him as a member, One’s being an officer in a local 
church, then, requires not only his being divinely qualified and 
called to it, but also the recognition and acceptance of him as 
such on the part of the local congregation. That acceptance by 
the congregation may be by the act of ordination, a formal vote, 
or informal assent. In any case such action is essential to the 
proper functioning of an officer in relation to a local church. 

But how many elders or deacons should a local church be 
expected to have at one time? From the very nature of the 
method by which they are developed no fixed number should be 
expected in every case. The number varies according to the 
size of the congregation and the needs. It is certain the local 
churches of the apostolic period frequently had several elders. 
- In the Jerusalem church ‘‘the elders’’ are mentioned (Acts 15: 
6). The church at Ephesus had ‘‘elders’’ (Acts 20:17). In 
the church at Philippi were ‘‘ bishops and deacons’’ (Phil. 1:1). 
Titus was left in Crete to ‘‘ordain elders in every city’’ (Titus 
1:5). The sick are instructed to ‘“‘call for the elders of the 
church’’ (Jas. 5:14). In these texts is proof of a plurality of 
elders in each of those local churches. Especially the last text 
is ground for the inference that a plurality of elders in the local 
church was common. No clear proof is afforded by Seripture 
of a church with but one elder. In the Revelation the messages 
to the seven churches are addressed to ‘‘the angel of the 
echurch,’’ but it is not certain that this refers to the pastor. 
Probably it does. 

History furnishes equally certain proof that the early local 
churches had a plurality of elders. Polyearp urges the Philip- 
pian church to ‘‘subject themselves to their presbyters and dea- 


GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 533 


cons.’’ Tertullian says of the local church, ‘‘Certain approved 
elderg preside.’’? In speaking of the apostolic churches Neander 
says, ‘‘The guidance of the communities was entrusted to a 
Council of elders’’ (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1, 
p. 184). 

Doubtless the normal New Testament church today will have 
a plurality of elders. An important question arises in the pres- 
ent connection as to whether there should be one among them 
recognized as the ‘‘pastor.’’ The ‘‘angels’’ of the churches were 
probably such. LHarly church writers state that in the second 
century the presbyters of the local church appointed one of their 
own number to preside over them and the congregation, but 
that he was only first among equals. Yet it is doubtful whether 
any clear evidence exists that the early churches had but one 
‘‘pnastor’’ in the modern sense. Probably conditions were such 
that they did not have the same occasion for a single special 
pastor as seems to be demanded by modern conditions. For 
economic reasons usually a church today can have but one elder 
to give his entire time to its service. It has been found an 
advantage, when it is possible, to have one supported financially 
by the congregation to devote himself to its care. Even if the 
support of more than one is possible it has been found an ad- 
vantage usually for one to be entrusted and charged especially 
with the responsibility of presiding over and directing the work 
of the congregation. This makes for efficiency and insures in a 
measure against neglect of important work. The Scripture 
statements are not opposed to such a practise. The elder thus 
recognized as the special overseer is usually one especially fitted 
for his work by training, experience, and spiritual gifts. The 
recognition of such a special pastor, though possibly without 
precedent in the Scriptures, is not opposed by any Scripture 
teaching and is a good practise if he is not given such a place 
in relation to other elders in the congregation as to hinder their 
functioning in the way God would have them. This recognition 
as the special pastor of one of the divinely appointed elders of 
a local church is not in disregard of the divine government of 
the church, but in conformity with it. It is simply allowing him 
opportunity in a larger measure to do the very work which he 
has been divinely called and qualified to do. 

The choosing of elders in the local church igs represented in 


534 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the New Testament as being, in a measure at least, the work of 
other ministers. Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in the new 
churches they established (Acts 14:23). Titus was directed to 
ordain elders in every city. There is no reason for believing 
this was done independently of the approval or cooperation of 
the members of those congregations. In the nature of the case 
the concurrence of the church is necessary in the appointing or 
ordaining of elders in local churches. The exact method to be 
followed in this may vary in different instances and is not perti- 
nent to this discussion. 

Certain questions relative to the choosing of deacons remain 
for consideration. The nature of the office and work of deacons 
has been discussed. We nowinquire: (1) Are they consti- 
tuted deacons by God or by election by the church? (2) Are 
they to be ordained? 

With the lack of evidence that ‘‘the seven’’ elected at Jeru- 
salem were deacons we have no Scripture example of the elec- 
tion of deacons. Because of the nature of their work, deacons 
ean not be made such by election or other human process for 
the same reason that elders can not be so constituted. As elders 
are such because God has called them and given them spiritual 
gifts for their work, so deacons, or assistant pastors, are such 
because they are divinely qualified to be such by those gifts 
that Paul describes as ‘‘helps.’’ The idea of a board of deacons 
consisting of a definite number whether or not that number be 
seven is without New Testament support. As a man can not be 
constituted a preacher by election, so one can not be made a 
deacon by votes. But as a congregation may choose one from 
those who have already been constituted preachers by God to 
take the particular responsibility of caring for it, so those who 
are already constituted deacons by God because of his having 
given them spiritual gifts may be selected either by the pastof 
or by the congregation to perform some particular phase of 
work in which the pastor needs assistance. One such spiritual 
worker may be appointed to the work of visiting the sick, an- 
other to visiting the members of the church having spiritual 
difficulties, another to visiting the poor, another to leading 
prayer-meetings, or another to assisting in the Lord’s Supper. 
For the purpose of fixing responsibility for certain work a board 
may be elected from those who are already deacons. But such 


GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH 035 


a board may not properly assume to rule the congregation and 
dictate to the pastor. 

The Bible makes no mention of the ordination of deacons, 
inasmuch as the ‘‘seven’’ can not be said to have been deacons. 
It does not teach, however, that they may not be ordained. But 
certainly it is not improper when deacons are appointed to some 
special service in the church as before mentioned, the same as 
when lay members or preachers are so appointed, that such 
appointment should be accompanied by the laying on of hands 
and prayer. It is even desirable that such recognition should 
be accorded them. 


CHaprTer IIT 
APOSTASY AND RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH 


In view of what has been said of the constitution of the 
apostolic church, it must be obvious even to the casual observer 
that the nature of the organization and government of the mod- 
ern church is very unlike that described in the New Testament. 
A radical departure from the faith and practises of the primitive 
church has taken place. The church has apostatized from the 
teachings of the Scriptures and that divine organization and 
government of it therein represented. This falling away is the 
ground for the need of a restoration or reformation of the 
church. The nature of this reformation is determined by the 
nature of the apostasy. Therefore, in order to understand what 
should be accomplished in the work of reformation we must 
first inquire concerning what was the nature of that apostasy. 

Such inquiry is properly within the province of systematic 
theology. No ecclesiology is complete today which omits a dis- 
cussion of the principles of the constitution of the New Testa- 
ment church in relation to the teaching and polity of the mod- 
ern humanly organized churches. The insistent demand of re- 
cent years on the part of the Christian world for unity makes 
such a consideration incumbent upon the theologian of the pres- 
ent time. 

I. The Apostasy of the Church 

1. Two Aspects of Apostasy Predicted.—To allay the anxiety of 
the Thessalonian Christians concerning the near approach of the 
second advent of Christ, the apostle Paul wrote them, ‘‘That 
day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and 
that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth 
and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is wor- 
shiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing 
himself that he is God... . And now ye know what withholdeth 
that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of ini- 
quity doth already work: only he who now letteth [restraineth, 
A. 8. V.] will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then 
shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume 
with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the bright- 


ness of his coming: even him whose coming is after the working 
536 


APOSTASY AND RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH 537 


of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders’’ (2 Thess. 
2:3-9). 

These words are a clear prediction that an apostasy should 
come. The original of our word ‘‘apostasy’’ is found in the 
Greek amootacia (apostasia), which is rendered ‘‘falling away”’ 
in verse 3. That a correct exegesis of these verses describes a 
great apostasy then future and that this exegesis is common 
among interpreters is shown by the following quotation from the 
Pulpit Commentary: ‘‘The prediction of St. Paul concerning 
the Man of Sin made a deep impression upon the early Fathers, 
and the references to it in their writings are numerous. There 
is also a comparative unanimity in their sentiments. In general, 
they considered that the fulfilment of the prediction was future; 
that the Man of Sin was Antichrist, and an individual; and that 
the restraining influence was the Roman Empire... . 

‘‘The Reformers in general adopted this opinion. Such were 
the views of Luther, Calvin, Zwinglius, Melanchthon, Beza, and 
Bucer; and, among English Reformers, Cranmer, Ridley, Lati- 
mer, Hooper, and Jewell. According to them, the apostasy is the 
falling away from the evangelical doctrine to the traditions of 
men and the corruptions of popery; the Man of Sin, or Anti- 
christ, is not, as the Fathers conceived, an individual, but the suc- 
cession of popes; and the restraining power is the Roman Empire, 
out of whose ruins the papacy arose. The Lutheran Church in- 
serted this opinion as an article in their creed (Article Smale., ii, 
4). In the dedication of the translators of the authorized version 
of King James, it is assumed that the pope is the Man of Sin; and 
that monarch is complimented for writing in the defense of the 
truth, which gave ‘such a blow unto that Man of Sin as will not 
be healed.’ And the assertion that the pope is Antichrist and 
the Man of Sin, forms one of the articles of the Westminster 
Confession: ‘There is no other head of the Church but the Lord 
Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head 
thereof, but is that Antichrist, that Man of Sin and son of perdi- 
tion, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ and all 
that is called God’ (ch. XXV.6).... Besides the early Reform- 
ers, this opinion is advocated by Hooker, Hurd, Newton, Turre- 
tin, Benson, Bengel, Doddridge, Macknight, Michaelis, Elliott, 
and Bishop Wordsworth. . .. In the view of those who regard 
the pope as the Man of Sin, this prediction was fully verified. 


038 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


No sooner was the restrainer removed than the Man of Sin was 
revealed. As long as the Roman Kmperor continued heathen 
and resident at Rome, no ecclesiastical power wag permitted to 
exalt itself... . 

‘‘Are the characteristics of the Man of Sin found in popery? 
Those who belong to this class of interpreters assert that the 
resemblance is striking and obvious. An apostasy is predicted, 
and there is in Romanism a talling away from the pure gospel 
to the traditions of men; the doctrines of purgatory, transub- 
stantiation, the sacrifice of the Mass, the adoration of the Virgin 
and the Saints, are adduced as examples. The Man of Sin is 
represented as opposing and exalting himself against all that is 
called God or is an object of worship; and this is considered as 
receiving its fulfilment in the pope exalting himself above all 
human and divine authority, claiming the title ‘king of kings 
and lord of lords,’ applying to himself the words of the psalmist, 
‘All kings shall bow down before thee,’ styling himself universal 
bishop, and asserting his power to dispose of the kingdoms of 
the earth. The Man of Sin is said to seat himself in the temple 
of God, showing himself as God. The temple of God is here 
understood to be the Christian Church, and the pope places 
himself in it as its supreme head, the vicar of Jesus Christ. He 
shows himself as God by claiming divine attributes, as holiness 
and infallibility ; assuming divine prerogatives, as the power of 
pardoning sins and the opening and shutting of the kingdom 
of heaven; and using such divine titles as ‘Our Lord God the 
Pope,’ ‘Another God on earth.’ Every pope on his election is 
placed on the high altar at St. Peter’s, and receives the adora- 
tion of the cardinals. The coming of the Man of Sin is after 
the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and wonders 
of falsehood. And this is considered as receiving its fulfilment 
in the false miracles of popery; in the imposition of indulgences 
and purgatory; in the wonders done by sacred images moving, 
speaking, bleeding; in the prodigies effected by sacred relics; 
in the supernatural visitations of the Virgin, and in the pre- 
tended power of working miracles which the church of Rome 
still claims. . .. And, besides, in the other passage where Paul 
predicts the falling away of the latter times, the marks which 
he gives find their counterpart in the corruption of popery: 
‘Giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speak- 


APOSTASY AND RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH 539 


ing lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with hot 
iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from 
meats’ (1 Tim. iv. 1-3). Paul represents the system as work- 
ing even in his days: ‘For the mystery of lawlessness is already 
working’ (ch. ii. 7). 

‘‘So that,’’ as Bishop Newton observes, the foundations of 
popery were laid, indeed, in the apostles’ days, but the super- 
structure was raised by degrees, and several ages passed before 
the building was completed, and the Man of Sin was revealed in 
full perfection. 

‘‘Of course, according to this view of the subject, the com- 
plete fulfilment of the prophecy is still future. The destruction 
of the Man of Sin—that is, Romanism—is also predicted: 
‘Whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth, 
and annihilate by the appearance of his coming’ (ch. 11. 8).... 
Upon the whole, on an impartial review of the subject, we can 
not avoid the impression that the points of resemblance between 
the prophecy and Romanism are numerous, varied, and striking. 
Our forefathers had no doubt as to the application of the pre- 
diction, and perhaps they were nearer the truth than we in mod- 
ern times, who hesitate. Such an opinion may be considered as 
uncharitable and unjust, and is certainly not in accordance with 
the more liberal spirit of our age, where popery is viewed as it 
presently exists, divested of its power to persecute, and as seen 
in the culture, refinement, and piety of many of its adherents. 
But when we reflect upon the abominable persecutions of the 
Inquisition, the monstrous wickedness of the popes prior to the 
Reformation, the atrocities perpetrated in the name of religion, 
the crimes committed by the priests, and the general corruption 
of the whole system; and when we think that it is only the re- 
straining influence of Protestantism which prevents a repeti- 
tion of such actions, we may see reason, if not to affirm posi- 
tively, yet to suspect that such an opinion may be founded on 
truth, and if so, be neither uncharitable nor unjust.’’ 

Two aspects of apostasy are described in the prophecy under 
consideration. (1) A falling away, or departure, from the faith, 
or teaching, of the New Testament was to take place. The faith 
and practises of Christians were to undergo a change because 
of a rejection of the Word of God and a substitution therefor of 
the traditions and commandments of men. (2) The revelation 


540 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


¢ 


and exaltation of the ‘‘man of sin’’ was to result in his usurpa- 
tion of the place and authority of God in the ‘‘temple,’’ or 
church, of God. This aspect of apostasy doubtless refers to the 
rejection of the rule of the Holy Spirit in the church in favor of 
a system of man rule. 

Besides this more particular prediction of the apostasy, one 
phase or the other of it 1s represented in other texts. ‘‘Many 
false prophets shall arise, and shall deceive many. And because 
iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold’’ (Matt. 
24:11, 12). ‘‘Some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to 
seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils’? (1 Tim. 4:1). ‘‘There 
shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in 
damnable heresies’’ (2 Pet. 2:1). 

2. A Rejection of the Teaching of the Word of God.—The substi- 
tution of human traditions for the true faith was rapid, though 
gradual. Christianity had largely departed from the faith by 
the end of the third century. To set forth in order the various 
false doctrines and superstitious practises is the function of 
church history rather than of systematic theology. Our present 
purpose requires only the citation of such examples as will give 
an adequate idea of the nature of the aspect of apostasy under 
discussion. 

As early as the third century simple faith in Christ for sal- 
vation began to be obscured by many unscriptural rites and 
ceremonies. Baptismal regeneration gained wide acceptance, 
and baptism itself not only became changed as to mode and 
meaning, but was burdened with the addition of a very elaborate 
ritual, Concerning the observance of baptism in the third cen- 
tury, Rutter says, ‘‘Nor was the sacrament of baptism adminis- 
tered to any till the humble catechumen had been publicly ex- 
orecised, had acknowledged himself under the influence of a 
malignant spirit, and had submitted to a long preparation. ... 
The catechumen was exorcised for twenty days previous to his 
baptism, in order to deliver him from the supposed dominion of 
evil spirits, and during that time was prepared by abstinence, 
the knowledge of the Lord’s prayer, and the Articles of Belief, 
for becoming a member of the church. In imitation of the pag- 
ans, the Christians had thought proper to introduce mysteries 
into the religion of Christ; and the administration of baptism, 
confirmation, ordination, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, 


APOSTASY AND RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH 541 


the Lord’s prayer, and a number of other offices were indus- 
triously concealed from the catechumen. . . . Confirmation im- 
mediately followed the reception of baptism. This ceremony 
consisted in anointing them with holy oil and the imposition of 
hands; the former of which practises was probably introduced 
about the beginning of this century; and to this unction was 
ascribed the effect of confirming the soul in all spiritual graces 
on the part of God, and the confirmation of the profession of a 
Christian on the part of the man. White garments were dis- 
tributed to the neophytes upon their being baptized, which after 
being worn eight days were deposited in the church. The be- 
lever, who by this rite became incorporated into the society of 
Christians, was congratulated upon his admission with the kiss 
of peace, and was presented with a mixture of milk and honey, 
or milk and wine. After a few other trifling ceremonies, he was 
permitted to partake of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, 
which began in several of the more opulent societies to be ad- 
ministered with much external pomp’’ (Church History, pp. 
53-55). 

The true significance of the Lord’s Supper was also obscured 
by the doctrines of the sacrifice of the mass, and of transub- 
stantiation. The clergy came to be regarded as a priesthood. 
Salvation was made to depend upon works of penance and ob- 
servance of fasts, Easter, and Lent. The doctrine of salvation 
through the sufferings of purgatory was substituted for the 
teaching of salvation through faith in Christ alone. Much was 
said of making the sign of the cross on the forehead on various 
occasions. Celibacy was enjoined on the priesthood, and spe- 
cial rewards in heaven were offered to others who refrained 
from marriage, which resulted in monasticism with its atten- 
dant corruptions. Image worship, the adoration of Mary, and 
supplication of the saints were among other God-dishonoring 
practises. That these teachings and practises constitute a de- 
parture from the primitive faith of the church every informed 
person will admit. 

3. A Rejection of the Rule of the Spirit of God—C oincident 
with the departure from the faith was the rise of the man of 
sin. Indeed that impious system of man rule could have had 
no place except for a falling away from the teaching of the New 
Testament. The rule of the Holy Spirit in the church was lost 


542 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


sight of and instead a system was originated after the order of 
the civil government whereby men should usurp the place that 
rightfully belonged to God. This system of man rule over the 
church is the second of the two phases of the apostasy. Both in 
the prediction of the ‘‘man of sin’’ in the second Thessalonian 
epistle and also in the symbolic prophecies of Revelation and 
Daniel it is represented as especially blaspheming God by usurp- 
ing prerogatives which are rightly his. Any system or power 
that excludes God from ruling over his own church is especially 
displeasing to him, and might well be termed a man of sin. The 
superstitions and abuses of the papacy are objectionable, but 
the Seriptures represent as especially so that human ecclesias- 
ticism which usurps the divine prerogative of ruling the church 
of God, whether that ecclesiasticism be the papal system or an- 
other humanly constituted power. 

The first steps in the growth of human ecclesiasticism prob- 
ably appeared to those of that time as harmless innovations, and 
doubtless were not prompted by altogether evil motives. As 
men came to think of Christ as being absent from his church 
they assumed the necessity of a humanly constituted govern- 
ment. When they lost sight of the important truth that the 
authority of the minister has its basis in his divine gifts, they 
began to recognize positional authority by making the authority 
to inhere in the position rather than in the man who filled it. 
The internal bond which unites Christians was disregarded in 
favor of an external union through human organization with all 
lines of authority leading to a single human head. 

Such an organization was not effected suddenly, but by very 
gradual stages. It was begun in the second century by the dis- 
tinction of two classes in the ministry, presbyters and bishops, 
and the exaltation of the bishops over the elders. Concerning 
the rise of the organization George P. Fisher in his church his- 
tory says, ‘‘The first three centuries witnessed the gradual 
gsrowth of a hierarchical organization. . . . Country churches, 
formed under the auspices of a neighboring city church, were 
affiliated with it, and had for their pastor a presbyter of the 
parent church, subject to its bishop. Rural churches planted 
independently had each of them its own bishop. The country 
bishops, for a considerable time, kept up their independence; 
but most of these churches, before the beginning of the fourth 


APOSTASY AND RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH § 5438 


century, were subordinated, like the class of rural churches first 
mentioned, to the neighboring city community. Thus each city 
bishop had a jurisdiction covering the town and the vicinity... . 

‘“The bishop of the metropolis of each Roman province natur- 
ally acquired a precedence over other bishops within its limits. 
This was owing to the rank of the city, for, generally speaking, it 
was this consideration, more than any other, that determined 
the relative dignity of bishops. Another consideration was the 
fact that, not infrequently, from the provincial capital the gos- 
pel was planted in many other places. The metropolitan arrange- 
ment was slow in being introduced in the West, because in that 
region the cities were comparatively few. The prerogatives of 
metropolitans were for a long time undefined. The theory of 
the equality and independence of bishops continued to be held, 
and on occasions was boldly asserted. 

‘‘The hierarchical tendency led to the elevation to a still 
higher position of the bishops of a few principal cities, which 
were, moreover, regarded as having been seats of the apostles 
in a peculiar sense. The designation ‘‘arechbishop,’’ first apphed 
to all metropolitans, came at length to be a title of these metro- 
politans of the first rank. They were also, eventually, styled 
primates or patriarchs. They were, in this period, the bishops 
of Antioch, Alexandria, and, especially, Rome. ... The dignity 
of the metropolitans was enhanced through synods, in which 
they were the presiding officers. .. . 

‘‘The conception of the visible church as one body, together 
with the exaggerated notion of Peter’s precedence among the 
apostles, created a silent demand for a continuance of this pri- 
macy. Where should this be found—where could the central 
point of episcopal authority be discovered—save at the capital 
of the world, in the church which, as men were coming to believe, 
Peter had founded and of which he had been the first pastor? 
. . . The association of Peter and Paul with Rome made the 
chureh there an apostolic see of the loftiest rank. The exalted 
political importance of Rome, and its transcendent fame among 
cities, lent an unequalled dignity to its bishop’’ (History of the 
Christian Church, pp. 56, 57). 

Though the primacy of the bishop of Rome was not undis- 
puted until a later date, yet the foregoing quotation shows that 
the system of which it was the logical culmination was developed 


544 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


before the end of the third century. These different gradations 
of the clergy—presbyters, bishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, 
and pope—constituted purely human organization and were for 
no other purpose than human government of the church. The 
authority of such officers was conferred by a superior, was 
determined by the position, and was not a result of endowment 
with spiritual gifts by the Holy Ghost. Such man rule in the 
church excluded the rule of the Spirit of God. 

The apostasy, then, consisted in a rejection of God’s two 
witnesses (Rev. 11:3), the Word and the Spirit of God, as the 
rulers of God’s people. 


Il. Sixteenth Century Reformation Partial 


1. A Partial Return to the Bible—All Protestants look back 
to the sixteenth century as the time of reformation. Doubtless 
a great religious reformation took place at that time. Like 
other great social convulsions, it had been long in preparation. 
It was but one aspect of a broader movement in breaking away 
from medievalism. As a result of the invention of printing and 
the general revival of learning, the Scriptures began to be more 
widely circulated. Men of letters in western Europe began to 
read the Seriptures in the original Hebrew and Greek. <A great 
aid to the work of reformation was the translation of the Bible 
into the vernacular of the countries of western Europe. But 
the real cause of the reformation was the working of the Spirit 
of God in connection with the study and preaching of the Word 
of God. 

As one aspect of the apostasy consisted in a departure from 
the teaching of the Scriptures, so a return to the Scriptures re- 
sulted in a rejection of unscriptural doctrines and practises. 
The great Biblical truth of salvation by faith alone was given 
special prominence. This necessarily excluded the idea of salva- 
tion through purgatory, penance, the mediation of the saints, 
and other means of salvation by works that had been introduced. 
Some of the reformers understood and preached more Bible 
truth than did others. Zwingli had a clearer conception of the 
nature of the Lord’s Supper than did Luther. Some had clearer 
views of the mode and significance of baptism than did many 
others who accepted the teaching of the reformation. For lack 
of light the reformers continued to hold certain of the unscrip- 


APOSTASY AND RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH 545 


tural doctrines of Romanism. The Reformation, though a great 
movement of the Spirit of God and far-reaching in its influence, 
was but a partial return to the teaching of the Scriptures. 
Many truths such as holiness of life, entire sanctification, divine 
healing, or unity of Christians which were lost sight of in the 
early centuries were not recovered by the reformers, and though 
held by some in a greater or less measure during the post- 
Reformation period, yet are still unfamiliar to a large propor- 
tion of Christians. 

2. Human Ecclesiasticism Continued.—W hile the departure 
from evangelical truth was partially overcome by the Reforma- 
tion of the sixteenth century, yet that other aspect of the apos- 
tasy—man rule instead of the rule of the Spirit of God—was 
perpetuated. It is true the papacy was rejected by the reform- 
ers along with the blasphemous claims of the pope’s being the 
infallible vicar of Christ on earth. The spiritual domination of 
Rome over men’s consciences was broken. But the reformers 
did not return to the primitive ideal of church organization and 
rovernment. For hundreds of years men had thought of the 
church as an externally and humanly organized body. The 
reformers had no other conception of the church than that 
which was commonly accepted in their day. They did not orig- 
inally intend separation from Rome, and only separated when 
the pope rejected them because of the gospel truth which they 
taught. 

The world church idea gave place to the conception of na- 
tional churches. The rulers of the various nations of Europe 
held supreme power except in the affairs of the church in which 
the pope was the highest authority. The national church de- 
manded a national headship. The kings of the various Protes- 
tant countries, who had often been jealous of the ecclesiastical 
authority of the pope, were glad enough to assume the oversight 
of these national churches. In a considerable measure they came 
to exercise authority in the affairs of the church in their re- 
spective realms similar to that which had formerly belonged to 
the pope. And doubtless for lack of better understanding and 
in conformity with the ecclesiastical ideals of their times, the 
reformers approved the organization of these national churches 
headed by their civil rulers. 

But these national churches were of the same essential nature 


546 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


as the Romish church as far as the principle of man rule was 
concerned. This is true even though they introduced various 
modifications of forms and usages. They were imitations of the 
Church of Rome. When the beast religion of Rome was re- 
jected, an image of the beast was set up to claim men’s alle- 
giance. See Rev. 13:14. The clergy of these national churches 
was self-perpetuating as was that of the Romish church and, - 
as a body, possessed legislative, judicial, and administrative 
authority. In other words, they claimed ‘‘the power of the 
keys,’’ which made their government the same in its essential 
nature with that of the Roman hierarchy. 

3. Protestant Divisions—This erroneous conception brought 
over from Romanism of the-nature of the church determined the 
nature of the early Protestant churches. It was also that which 
made a place for the organization of sects and the formation of 
creeds. With the idea that the church was an external union 
of men by human organization and that the enactment of its 
laws and the administration of its government were purely hu- 
man, founders of sects consistently assumed that they might 
properly formulate creeds and organize churches. The real 
cause of Protestant sects is to be found in this wrong concep- 
tion of what is the church. It is often assumed that the divi- 
sions of which Protestantism has been so fruitful are the result 
of insurmountable limitations of human understanding on the 
one hand and of religious liberty on the other. But the 
apostolic church was one and it knew nothing of many humanly 
organized sects; yet the average Christian of that period was as 
limited in understanding as are men of today, and religious 
liberty among Christians existed prior to the apostasy as truly 
as it now exists. Historical facts show that it has not been re- 
ligious liberty that has caused sects, but the lack of it. Those 
whose consciences led them to reject an existing creed, in seek- 
ing liberty from it and for failure to recognize the divinely 
given creed have formulated other creeds. 

Human creeds not only have their origin in a wrong concep- 
tion of the church, but are wrong in themselves. They are pro- 
ductive of sects as sects are productive of them. A human creed 
is a confession of faith as held by some synod or council possess- 
ing authority, written out as a form of union by which persons 
and things are to be tested, approved, or disapproved. But such 


APOSTASY AND RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH § 547 


creeds are altogether without divine authority. No evidence 
exists that God ever approved of any such attempt by man to 
produce a rule of faith to govern God’s people. In fact, those 
who formulate such creeds assume prerogatives which properly 
belong to God and reflect on his wisdom in giving the Scrip- 
tures. If a miniature Bible, or a condensed statement of re- 
ligious truth, were needed surely the Holy Spirit would have 
inspired such a one as Peter or Paul to write it. It would not 
have been left to uninspired men. The Scripture is the only 
statement ever given which is acceptable to all Christians as a 
rule of faith. Therefore, the creeds of men result in dividing 
rather than in uniting God’s people. That creeds are not neces- 
sary to the union of Christians is evident from the fact that the 
early church was one without a human creed. 

But it is said that creeds are plainer than the Bible. Surely 
God is able to state the truth more plainly than can men. Since 
God could have stated the truth more plainly than man, if he 
did not he is less benevolent than is man. But God is perfectly 
wise and good; therefore he has given exactly such a revelation 
of truth as man needs and no human statement of the truth can 
be clearer than it. Again it is said that creeds are necessary to 
discipline. But discipline was exercised in the apostolic church 
before human creeds existed (2 Corinthians 5). But the sup- 
porters of creeds further urge that the teaching of their creed 
is the same as the Bible. If this be true then why not hold to 
the Scriptures alone, as the creed must be superfluous? Be- 
cause the Scriptures are complete, any creed containing more, 
or less, or differing from the Scriptures must be imperfect and 
objectionable. But if a creed be exactly like the Scriptures, it 
is not a human creed at all, but the Bible itself. 

Not only are the human creeds of Protestantism objectionable, 
but its denominationalism is also objectionable. Party names 
are condemned by the apostle Paul. ‘‘ While one saith, I am of 
Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?’’ (1 Cor. 
3:4). For Christians today to denominate themselves Luther- 
ans, Wesleyans, Calvinists, or call themselves by any other name 
than that which the mouth of the Lord has named is equally 
dishonoring to God. As a married lady honors her husband by 
bearing his name rather than that of another, so the church 
honors Christ by bearing his name whose wife she is rather than 


548 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


another name. The Scriptures designate the true church as 
‘‘the church of God’’ (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; 1 Tim. 3:5); 
also the ‘‘churches of Christ’’ (Rom. 16:16). 

Divisions among Christians are not only objectionable be- 
cause they are the product of an erroneous conception of the 
church, because of their human creeds, or because of their un- 
scriptural denominations, but the division itself is wrong. This 
is evident from the words of Jesus, ‘‘Neither pray I for these 
alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their 
word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and 
I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may 
believe that thou hast sent me’’ (John 17:20, 21). The will 
of Christ is here clearly expressed concerning Christian unity. 
The apostolic exhortations are in harmony with this prayer. 
‘‘Now I beseech you, brethren, ... that there be no divisions 
among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same 
mind and in the same judgment’’ (1 Cor. 1:10). ‘‘Endeavoring 
to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace’’ (Eph. 
4:3). At its most spiritual period the early church were ‘‘of 
one heart and one soul.’’ Because all Christians have the same 
spirit and have been divinely inducted into one body, unity is 
natural and division is unnatural to them. 

Without doubt the many divisions among Christians are con- 
demned, not only by the clear texts already quoted, but by the 
whole tenor of the New Testament. It is sometimes argued by 
those who defend sects that they are necessary to keep the church 
clean, by watching over each other; and also that they are 
valuable in that they accommodate all classes, so if one can not 
conscientiously accept the doctrine of one sect he can choose from 
the variety one whose teaching suits him. But those who thus 
reason show inconsistency by proceeding to persuade all to be- 
lieve as they do, which is virtually striving to do away with that 
very means which they say is necessary to the purity of the 
church and advantageous in causing the largest number to ac- 
eept Christianity. But no reasoning can furnish a defense for 
division in view of all the Scriptures teach against it. 

The unity of Christians is desirable for different reasons. 
First, divisions cause much strife, ill will, and animosity among 
those who profess to be Christians, which is evidently dishonor- 
ing to Christ. Second, in contending for the peculiar tenets of the 


APOSTASY AND RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH 549 


different creeds they cause great waste of time that might better 
be spent in disseminating the knowledge of salvation to those who 
know it not. Third, divisions among Christians cause a waste 
of millions of dollars, in multiplying church-buildings in com- 
munities where but one would otherwise be sufficient and in em- 
ploying and paying several ministers to preach in these places 
Where all might well listen to one, while this money might be 
used to send missionaries to the unevangelized, to circulate Bibles, 
or to feed and clothe the poor. Fourth, sects among Christians 
cause men to disbelieve in Christianity, as Jesus said oneness 
would cause the world to believe. 

Because the existing divisions among Christians are directly 
contrary to the Bible and a great obstacle to the progress of the 
kingdom of Christ, all Christians should reject them. Because 
they are the result of a wrong idea of the church which origi- 
nated in the apostasy, they should be rejected along with that 
erroneous theory. In this aspect especially the reformation of 
the sixteenth century was incomplete. A complete restoration 
of Christianity to the primitive standard is needed. 


III. A Complete Restoration 


1. Present Tendency to Unity—Until the last generation or- 
eanized sects and humanly constructed creeds have been sup- 
posed by Christians to be perfectly proper and necessary. Di- 
vision among Christians has been in good repute, and those who 
opposed it were regarded as dangerous to the welfare of Chris- 
tianity. But in recent years a radical change in sentiment in 
this respect has been developing. The Christian world is now 
ealling for unity among the Christians and deploring the exist- 
ing divisions. Since the World War this demand for unity has 
become more insistent. In discussing “‘recent tendencies’’ of 
the church, Williston Walker, Professor of Ecclesiastical History 
in Yale University, says in his new ‘‘History of the Christian 
Church’’ (March, 1918), ‘‘An outstanding feature of the exist- 
ing religious situation in the United States and Canada is the 
decline of denominational rivalries, and the increase of coopera- 
tion in religious work. Voluntary associations for corporate 
Christian endeavor have developed remarkably. Conspicuous 
have been the Young Men’s Christian Association, founded by 
George Williams (1821-1905) in London in 1844, and since 


550 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


spread throughout the world, and its sister society, the Young 
Women’s Christian Association, organized in England in 1855, 
and both peculiarly successful in the United States. They have 
never been more useful than during the World War... . 

‘‘It is from missions that the strongest impulses to coopera- 
tion have come. A powerful force in this direction has been the 
Student Volunteer Missionary Movement, launched in 1886. 
The manifest impropriety of transferring denominational divi- 
sions to the mission-field has led to large association of similar 
groups of Christians into single bodies in China, India, and 
Japan. The essential unity of missionary endeavor was manifest 
at the World Missionary Conference, held in Edinburg in 
1910, the influence of which has been potent. The evils of re- 
ligious rivalries led, in the United States, to the establishment 
of the Home Missions Council in 1908, composed of representa- 
tives of societies engaged in similar work. This has been fol- 
lowed by the Foreign Missions Conference of North America, 
the Council of Women for Home Missions, and the Federation 
of Women’s Boards of Foreign Missions. 

‘‘These associations are voluntary. A federation of a more 
organic character was created, after considerable preliminary 
negotiation, by the formation in 1908 of the Federal Council of 
the Churehes of Christ in America, composed of official dele- 
gates from its cooperating churches. Its functions are advisory, 
not legislative or judicial. Its objects are: ‘To express the fel- 
lowship and catholic unity of the Christian Church. To bring 
the Christian bodies of America into united service for Christ 
and the world. To encourage devotional fellowship and mutual 
counsel concerning the spiritual life and religious activities of 
the churches. To secure a larger combined influence for the 
ehurches of Christ in all matters affecting the moral and social 
condition of the people, so as to promote the application of the 
law of Christ in every relation of human life.’ The Federal 
Council now hag the support of thirty denominations, including 
such important bodies as the Northern Baptists, Congregation- 
alists, Disciples, Lutherans (under the General Synod), Metho- 
dists, North and South, Presbyterians, North and South, Pro- 
testant Episcopalians, and the (Dutch and German) Reformed. 

‘‘*A movement even more ambitious in its plans was inaugur- 
ated by the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal 


APOSTASY AND RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH 551 


Church in the United States in 1910, aiming at an ultimate 
world conference on faith and order, which may effect the re- 
union of Christendom. The object has received the support of 
a majority of American Protestant bodies to the extent of offi- 
cial representation in several preliminary conferences which 
have been held, and an American delegation has urged coopera- 
tion in Great Britain with success. The World War has de- 
layed the progress in other countries that was hoped’’ (pp. 
588, 589). 

The foregoing statement shows at least the prevalence of 
the disposition for cooperation and even for organic union 
among Christians. But evidently in view of what has been said 
of the divine constitution of the church, all efforts at bringing 
Christians together through union of humanly organized 
churches is unscriptural and, in itself, is not that unity for 
which Jesus prayed and to which the apostles exhorted. If the 
principle of human ecclesiasticism by which the sects originated 
is wrong, no further application of that principle in a super- 
organization for the union of those sects can make the principle 
or the resulting organization Scriptural. Yet these efforts at 
union of the sects indicate a present-day tendency, and devout 
Christians, though they may for a time mistakenly hope for 
unity through these erroneous methods, will when enlightened 
welcome the true Bible unity. 

2. A Complete Reformation Predicted.—As Inspiration fore- 
told the apostasy from the faith and the rise of the man of sin, 
so likewise has it clearly predicted a complete restoration of the 
church. The subject is of sufficient importance to be worthy of 
a place in Scripture and prophecy. In fact, the prophecy of 
the apostasy is in itself reason for expecting a prediction of re- 
covery from that condition. 

In Daniel and Revelation are given at least five distinct 
series of symbolic prophecy, each of which clearly points out an 
apostasy and a complete restoration. These are, first, the dragon 
and beast religion (Revelation 12, 13) and the final triumph of 
the church in the fall of Babylon (Revelation 14: 1-9); second, 
the pure woman, her seclusion in the wilderness (Revelation 12), 
and the restoration represented by the 144,000 on Mount Zion 
(Revelation 14:1-6); third, the holy city trodden down and 
the slaying of the two witnesses (Revelation 11), God’s Word 


502 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


and Spirit, and the reformation in the resurrection of the wit- 
nesses (Rev. 11: 11-14) ; fourth, mystery Babylon the great and 
her harlot daughters (Revelation 17) and the restoration of the 
church represented by the announcement that Babylon is fallen 
and God’s people are called out of her (Rev. 18: 1-4) ; fifth, the 
fourth beast and the reign of the little horn (Daniel 7) and the 
later triumph of the kingdom of Christ (Dan. 7:26, 27; 2: 34, 
35). Space forbids a full exegesis of these texts, but the reader 
is referred to an able treatment of the subject, ‘‘The Last Refor- 
mation,’’ by F. G. Smith, published by the Gospel Trumpet 
Company, Anderson, Ind. 

In addition to the symbolic prophecies referred to, a plain 
prediction of the restoration-of the church is given in the Old 
Testament as follows: ‘‘And it shall come to pass in that day, 
that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: but it shall be one 
day which shall be known to the Lord, not day, nor night: but 
it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light’’ 
(Zech. 14:6, 7). Probably more impressive than anything we 
might say on this text is the following note from the Bible com- 
mentary of Thomas Scott, who wrote a century ago, before the 
present reformation movement began, which gives added value 
to his interpretation: ‘‘ ‘In that day,’ under the Christian dis- 
pensation, for a long season, the light would neither be ‘clear 
nor dark’; it would be greatly obscured by ignorance, heresy, 
superstition, and idolatry; yet not wholly extinguished; and 
the state of the church would be much deformed by sin and 
calamities; yet some holiness and consolation would be found. 
This period could neither be called a clear bright day, cheered 
and illuminated by the shining of a summer’s sun; nor would it 
be dark, as if the sun were set, or totally eclipsed: but it would 
contain a great mixture of truth and error, of holiness and sin, 
of happiness and misery. Yet it would form one day, and never 
be interrupted by a night of total darkness. It would also be 
known unto the Lord, as to the degrees of its light, and the 
term of its continuance; and he would watch over it, and take 
care of his cause and people during all the time of it. But his 
people would hardly know whether to call it day or night, or a 
compound of both; yet at length, towards the evening of the 
world, “‘the Sun of righteousness’’ would break forth, and shine 
with unclouded splendor, dispelling the gloom of ignorance, 


APOSTASY AND RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH 553 


heresy, idolatry, and superstition; and illuminating the church, 
and the earth, with knowledge, righteousness, peace, and con- 
solation. (Marg. and Marg. Ref. r-u.—Notes, Isa. 9:6, 7, v. 7. 
30:26. 60:15:22. Dan. 2:44, 45. 7:8:11:31-45.. Hos, 3: 
45, 621-3.) Rev. 11: 3-14 19 211-21) 2051-6)... (No longer 
would they . . . be divided into a number of sects and parties: 
but they would be all of one mind, to worship that one ‘‘name of 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,’’ into which all Chris- 
tians are baptized.—This interpretation evidently accords with 
various other prophecies, both in the Old and New Testament, 
and with the history of the Christian church, which records the 
fulfilment of those prophecies.’’ 

But the idea of a complete restoration from the apostasy is 
not only found in Scripture prophecy; such a restoration is 
actually being effected by a present-day movement which is 
affecting the entire Christian world. 

3. A Return to the Scriptures—As the apostasy rejected the 
Word and the Spirit of God, the rightful rulers of God’s people, 
for human traditions and human ecclesiasticism, so two aspects 
of reformation are necessary, the rejection of human creeds and 
of human ecclesiasticism in favor of the Word and Spirit of 
God. Creeds have fallen into disfavor generally. Throughout 
the Christian world may be discerned a growing tendency to 
repudiate them. MRationalists substitute for creeds their own 
speculations, but devout Christians are returning to the Scrip- 
tures as the source of truth. 

In theory the Reformation of the sixteenth century accepted 
the voice of the Scriptures instead of the voice of the Romish 
Chureh. In some degree the Scriptures actually were so ac- 
eepted. But with the perpetuation of human ecclesiasticism, 
human creeds soon began to supplant the Seriptures as the rule 
of faith for Christians. As a result the truth has often been 
obscured, and such limitations have been placed upon Chris- 
tians’ faith that further light was excluded by the creedal state- 
ments to which men were bound. The rejection of creeds and 
the exaltation of the Scriptures to their rightful place is result- 
ing in bringing Christians to a standard of truth acceptable to all. 
Even though all may not see alike on every point immediately, 
yet with the elimination of creeds which are divisive in their 
nature, and the teaching of the truth of the Scriptures by Spirit- 


554 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


filled ministers, the natural result is for Christians to come into 
‘‘the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God.’’ 

4. Rejection of Human Ecclesiasticism.—In view of what has 
been said of the nature of the church, it is evident that com- 
plete restoration of the church must include the rejection of 
human ecclesiasticism. Christian unity can never be attained 
by means of human organization. No union of the sects can 
effect it. A federation of the denominations would be merely 
to effect a world-church similar in nature, as far as human 
organization and government is concerned, to the Romish Church 
prior to the sixteenth century. A superorganization for the 
purpose of uniting the sects would be but another step in human 
ecclesiasticism. Moreover, since many true Christians are not 
members of any sect, such a federation of the sects would not 
include all true Christians as does the New Testament church. 
Also it would include many persons which are unconverted and 
consequently not members of the church of God. 

Christian unity is inconsistent with human ecclesiasticism. 
To have the former, the latter must be rejected. To reject this 
means for Christians to separate themselves from humanly 
organized churches, or to cease to be members. Such is the only 
attitude they can take that is consistent with the teaching of 
the Scriptures. Those who so separate themselves stand where 
salvation placed them and where the early church stood. When 
a company of them associate themselves for worship they con- 
stitute a true local church of God and any other Christian who 
likewise repudiates human ecclesiasticism will find no walls 
about that local church which in their nature exclude him. He 
can subscribe to their creed, which is the Scriptures. He can 
approve their church government, which is by the Holy Spirit. 

Such a repudiation of human ecclesiasticism is actually tak- 
ing place. The true church is being restored. This present 
reformation is not of men, but of God. A comparison of this 
movement with former great movements of God shows its simi- 
larity as to method. In the early church when the proper time 
came for carrying the gospel to the Gentiles the Holy Ghost 
began to lead many persons to that undertaking. Stephen advo- 
cated it in Jerusalem. Philip preached to the Samaritans and 
was led supernaturally to the Ethiopian. Peter was directed 
to Cornelius, and certain unnamed Christians converted many 


APOSTASY AND RESTORATION OF THE CHURCH 555 


Gentiles at Antioch. After all this the Holy Ghost sent forth 
Paul and Barnabas from Antioch to the conquest of the Gentile 
world. The Reformation of the sixteenth century was not ac- 
complished by Luther, but by God through many. Wycelif and 
Huss received the divine inspiration for such a reformation long 
before Luther’s time. In his own time Luther was but one 
among several reformers such as Zwingli, Calvin, and thou- 
sands whose names are unknown to history but whose hearts 
were stirred by the divine Spirit that wrought the Reformation. 

At the present time there is a general movement of God 
among Christians for unity, as has been shown. As in the 
Lutheran Reformation there were many who had the impulse of 
reformation yet whose efforts were inconsistent with God’s 
methods, so now there are those who see the need of reforma- 
tion but attempt it by unscriptural methods. Yet the Spirit is 
actually gathering out a people from the humanly organized 
churches who are standing in the Bible church alone as did the 
primitive saints. If it be objected that they must necessarily 
constitute a sect themselves, let it be said in reply that they 
may as truly stand in the church of God only, apart from human- 
ly organized sects, as did the early Christians. If they repudiate 
that human ecclesiasticism which is the fundamental cause of sect 
organizations, their association together does not constitute them 
a sect, but they are members of the true catholic church. 


CHAPTER IV 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 


The New Testament ordinances are certain divinely appoint- 
ed outward observances which are significant of spiritual truths 
of the gospel. The Old Testament religion was one great sys- 
tem of outward ceremonies. These have been abolished. The 
Christian religion also has its symbolic rites, fewer and simpler 
than those given by Moses, but more expressive. Romanists 
hold a much larger number of ordinances than do most Protest- 
ants. Their ordinances, or sacraments as they call them, are 
seven in number—ordination, confirmation, matrimony, extreme 
unction, penance, baptism, and the eucharist. The first five of 
these are not properly classed with the two latter as ordinances. 
The criteria of an ordinance have been well described by Harvey 
as, ‘‘1. An outward symbol divinely appointed to represent a 
great fact or truth of the gospel and the personal relation of the 
recipient to that fact or truth. 2. A divine requirement, making 
its obligation universal and perpetual.’’ The first five sacraments 
of the Romish church as above named lack in whole or in part 
these criteria. 

From an early date the ordinances were regarded as effica- 
cious in actually conferring saving grace upon those who par- 
ticipated in them. This view has persisted to the present time, 
not only among Roman Catholics, but also in various Protestant 
ecommunions. It is so represented in their statements of faith. 
But neither the Scriptures nor reason furnish any ground for 
supposing salvation may be obtained by any physical means. 
The common sense of mankind instinctively repudiates the idea 
that any magical efficacy exists in any outward rite that of 
itself can confer spiritual grace. But though the ordinances 
do not confer grace, yet they are evidently a means of grace. 
They are a means of grace in the same sense as is the preaching 
of the gospel. In the Christian ordinances God has set forth 
certain fundamental truths of religion. In the preaching of the 
gospel these truths are addressed to the ear, but in the ordinances 
they are represented to the eye in visible form by means of mater- 
ial symbols. Augustine well said, ‘‘A sacrament is the word of 
‘God made visible.’’ As preaching is instrumental in salvation 


and spiritual edification, so are the ordinances. Because they 
556 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 057 


are divinely given representations of certain central truths of 
Christianity no variation in the form of their observance from 
that represented in the Scriptures is permissible. Any such 
perversion of the forms of the ordinances is as objectionable as 
to change the words of the Scriptures. If we have no authority 
to change the words of Jesus, ‘‘ Ye must be born again,’’ certainly 
we have no right to change the form of baptism by which the 
new birth is symbolized. 

Christians are under obligation to keep the ordinances be- 
cause their observance is divinely enjoined. The commandments 
to keep them are not of the nature of moral precepts, but are 
positive precepts. Like all positive precepts, the divine require- 
ment is the only ground of obligation. Moral duties are oblig- 
atory upon us because of the very nature of things, but not so 
are positive duties. Obedience to positive commandments re- 
quires a literal performance of the specific action enjoined in 
the spirit of true obedience. These are facts overlooked by anti- 
ordinance advocates. They also assume that all ordinances were 
abolished at the advent of the Holy Ghost. They suppose the 
ordinances represented as being done away in Col. 2: 14-22 are 
the Christian ordinances. But verse 16 shows clearly that these 
were the Old Testament ordinances which were concerned with 
meat, drink, holy days, new moons, and Sabbath-days. That 
the New Testament ordinances are not included is evident from 
the fact that they are constantly enjoined and observed subse- 
quently to the death of Christ. The Great Commission specifical- 
ly commands baptism for all who believe among all nations 
(Matt. 28:19). Peter commanded Cornelius and his household 
to be baptized (Acts 10:47, 48). Ananias told Paul to ‘‘arise 
and be baptized’’ (Acts 22:16). The thousands converted at 
Pentecost were commanded by Peter to be baptized (Acts 2: 38). 
Philip baptized the Samaritans (Acts 8:16), also the Ethiopian 
(v. 38). Paul baptized certain Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:138-17). 
That these apostolic preachers were not in error concerning the 
observance of ordinances after Pentecost is certain from the 
fact that years after that time the Lord himself made known 
to Paul how the Lord’s Supper is to be kept (1 Cor. 11:28). 

I. Baptism 

1. The Form of Baptism.—In the light of the clear statements 

of the Scriptures on the subject, Christian baptism is here con- 


558 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ceived of as immersion of a believer in water in token of his 
having previously been regenerated. That immersion is the 
true form of baptism may be shown by several distinct classes 
of proofs. 

(1) The Original Word. We are dependent principally upon 
the meaning of the words employed by the Bible for its meaning, 
as is true of any other written record. But the term ‘‘baptize’’ 
is not a translation of the original word, but is that original term 
transferred and anglicized. To determine the meaning of the 
word in our English Bible we must therefore inquire concerning 
the sense of the Greek term, which is pantiCw (baptize). 

In the absence of evidence to the contrary it is proper to 
assume that the writers of the New Testament employed this term 
in its usual sense. What that was is known from the Greek class- 
ics and the Septuagint. The classics use the term Paxtitw 
(baptizo) or its derivatives only to express the idea of immersion 
or entire covering of the person or thing of which it is used. 
Baxtitw (baptizo) is defined ‘‘to dip in or under water’’ by 
Liddell and Seott, who are acknowledged lexical authorities in 
classical Greek. A leading classical editor, Dr. Anthon, says of 
baptizo, ‘‘The primary meaning of the word is to dip or immerse; 
and its secondary meanings, if it ever had any, all refer in some 
way or other to the same leading idea. Sprinkling, ete., are 
entirely out of the question.’’ The most eminent authorities on 
the usage of the classics have ever agreed with the foregoing 
quotations. In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, 
Baxtiftw (baptize) is used two times: Naaman ‘‘dipped himself 
seven times in Jordan’’ (2 Kings 5:14); and ‘‘transgression 
overwhelms, or immerses, me’’ (Isa. 21:4). In neither of these 
texts is any ground furnished on which to question that im- 
mersion is the sense of BantiCw (baptize). 

With no evidence of any other sense of the term either in 
the classics or the Septuagint, the presumption is clear that the 
New Testament sense BaxitGw (baptizo) is to immerse. That 
this is its sense is the testimony of the highest lexical authorities, 
as the following quotations show. Liddell and Scott: Greek- 
English Lexicon—‘Baxtitw, to dip in or under water.’’ Thayer: 
(rreek-English Lexicon of the New testament—‘‘Baxittw, prop- 
erly, to dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge.’’ Green: Greek- 
English Lexicon of the New Testament—‘Banxittw (baptizo), 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 559 


to dip, immerse.’’ Greenfield: Greek Leaicon of the New Testa- 
ment—‘ BanitCw (baptizo), to immerse, immerge, submerge, 
sink.’’ Sophocles (a native Greek and professor of Harvard 
University) : Lexicon of the Greek of the Roman and Byzantine 
Periods—‘‘ Baxittw (baptizo), to dip, to immerse, to sink. There 
is no evidence that Luke and Paul and the other writers of the 
New Testament put upon this verb meanings not recognized by 
the Greeks.’’ Scores of other Greek Lexicons might be quoted, 
many of them by men whose church creed supports sprinkling 
for baptism, but all of them agree with the foregoing quotations. 
In further support of this sense of the original word for baptize 
might be cited multitudes of other quotations by eminent schol- 
ars in etymological dictionaries, Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, 
religious encyclopedias, and quotations from the Greek classics, 
the church fathers, different versions of the New Testament, 
noted commentators, great theologians, and historians of high 
authority. But these would constitute a volume in themselves 
and space forbids their citation here. All attempts to show that 
the word has another meaning than immersion are labored ar- 
cuments from alleged exceptional usage and that in the New 
Testament the word is used out of its ordinary meaning. But 
historical, Biblical, and philological proofs are against such reas- 
oning, If the act of baptizing were by sprinkling, then we 
should expect that the inspired writers would have used that com- 
mon Greek term gaivw (rhaino) which means sprinkle. If 
pouring were intended the ordinary word éxyéw (ekcheo), mean- 
ing pour, should have been used. But neither of these words 
is ever used of Christian baptism. To say the Holy Spirit passed 
by these two words and employed a word which commonly meant 
immerse in the sense of sprinkle or pour is to reflect severely 
on his divine wisdom. 

But the most certain proof of the meaning of the term 
Baxtitw (baptizo) is that found in the New Testament itself. 
The constructions in which the word occurs, the conditions under 
which the act was performed, what is said of the act itself, and 
figurative uses of the term all furnish evidence of immersion. 
These proofs will appear in what follows. 

(2) Prepositions Used With the Term. Thirteen times 
Baxtitw (baptizo), with the term expressing the element, is 
used with the preposition év (en), translated in. Examples are 


560 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


as follows: ‘‘And were all baptized of him in [év (en) ] the river 
of Jordan’’ (Mark 1:5); ‘‘I indeed baptize you with [év (en), 
‘Cin’? A. S. V.] water. ... He shall baptize you with [év (en), 
‘“in,’’? A. S. V.]| the Holy Ghost’’? (Matt. 3:11). In common 
usage év (en) has the sense of 7. In the first of the foregoing 
quotations this translation is required by the context. In the last 
two the element used is the question under consideration; there- 
fore with may be used, but evidently im is a better rendering, 
for which reason it is given in the Revision, even though many 
of the revisers held sprinkling as Christian baptism. 

Another preposition is used in connection with the Greek 
term for baptize in Mark 1:9: ‘‘ Jesus came from Nazareth of 
Galilee, and was baptized of John im Jordan.’’ Here the Greek 
preposition rendered in is sic (es) and is properly translated 
into as is done in the margin of the Revised Version. Eis (eis) 
signifies motion from without to within. Therefore the river of 
Jordan was not sprinkled or poured upon Jesus, but he was 
immersed in it. 

(3) Circumstances for Baptizing. It is frequently specifically 
stated in connection with the baptisms described in the New 
Testament that they occurred where there was a body of water 
sufficient for immersion, from which the inference is clear in con- 
nection with other evidence that the mode was immersion. John 
usually baptized in Jordan, which was the largest river of Pal- 
estine, varying in width from seventy-five to one hundred and 
fifty feet and in depth from three to twelve feet. Again it is 
said that John baptized in Enon because there was ‘‘much water’’ 
there. But if he had been sprinkling people there would have 
been no need of his restricting his ministrations to the Jordan 
or Enon. He might have baptized at almost any point in Pales- 
tine. But ‘‘much water’’ was a reason for his baptizing in those 
particular places. The inference is clear that the much water 
was needed for immersion, 

As Philip and the Ethiopian journeyed along the desert road 
leading from Jerusalem to Gaza they came to ‘‘a certain water,”’ 
a body of water. It was large enough for both men to be able 
to go down into it. Three roads lead from Jerusalem to Gaza. 
The one through Hebron passes many streams and pools ample 
for immersion. Tradition holds that the great fountain of Beth- 
zur, on another road, is the place of the eunuch’s immersion. 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 561 


But a third road which passes through Beit Jibrin and is in some 
places desert is referred to by Dr. Robinson as probably the road 
in question and the water which he says he saw standing in the 
bottom of an adjacent wady is evidence that the immersion of 
the Eunuch might well have taken place here. (See Researches, 
Vol. II., note 32.) The fact that Paul and Silas took the Phil- 
ippian jailer out of his house to baptize him is also ground for 
believing that he was immersed. See Acts 16: 32, 34. 

It is said of Jesus when he was baptized that he came ‘‘up 
out of the water.’’ Concerning the baptism of the Ethiopian by 
Philip it is stated that ‘‘they went down both into the water’’; 
and when the baptism was accomplished it is said, ‘‘and when 
they were come up out of the water.’’ In both these instances 
the baptism was performed while the subject was in the water, 
most naturally implying immersion. But it is objected that tis 
(eis), into, and &é% (ek), out of, mean only to and from, that they 
do not imply an actual entering of the water, but only coming 
near it and withdrawing. But the same word is translated 
‘‘into’’ in Matt. 25:46, ‘‘These shall go away into [sic (ets) | 
everlasting punishment: but the righteous into [ets (eis)] life 
eternal.’’ If the objection be valid this latter text gives no 
assurance of heaven to the righteous and no certainty of pun- 
ishment to the wicked. Jesus was ‘‘baptized of John in [Etc 
(eis) into] the Jordan.’’ That sic (ets) and & (ek) when 
used in contrasted relation mean into and out of is affirmed by 
Winer, Meyer, Farrar, Olshausen, Bloomfield, and Campbell. 

(4) Other Scripture Proofs. The figurative usage of the 
term ‘‘baptize’’ also furnishes evidence of the form of the literal 
baptism. Jesus said, ‘‘Are ye able ... to be baptized with the 
baptism that I am baptized with?’’ (Matt. 20:22, 23). Also, 
‘‘T have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened 
till it be accomplished!’’ (Luke 12:50). Here Christ’s suffer- 
ings at the time of his betrayal and death are represented as 
being so overwhelmingly great as to be termed a baptism of 
suffering. It is the magnitude of the suffering that constituted 
it a baptism. This is clearly impled in the words to James and 
John. But if baptism consisted in merely a few drops of water 
sprinkled upon the subject, then the figure would be wholly 
incongruous. There would be no proper comparison. But the 
idea of the body overwhelmed by water is a striking figure of 


562 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the intense agony of Gethsemane and of Calvary which came ~ 
upon him in overwhelming measure. In commenting on this ex- 
pression Lange says, ‘‘7'0 be baptized: An image of the depth 
and intensity of his suffering, like a baptism performed by im- 
mersion.’’ 

‘* All our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through 
the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
sea’’ (1 Cor. 10:1, 2). Here the words ‘‘under’’ and ‘‘through’’ 
tell the exact position of the Israelites when they are said to have 
been baptized. As Israel wags under the cloud and within the 
limits of the sea, which stood like a wall on either side, so bap- 
tism is a passing under the water. Alford says: They ‘‘entered 
by the act of such immersion into a solemn covenant with God, 
and became his church under the law as given by Moses, God’s 
servant—just as we Christians by our baptism are bound in 
solemn covenant with God. ... The allegory is obviously not 
to be pressed minutely, for neither did they enter the cloud 
nor were they wetted by the waters of the sea; but they passed 
under both, as the baptized passes under the water.”’ 

Throughout the sixth chapter of Romans the Apostle seeks 
to show that one who has been regenerated should not commit sin. 
He reasons thus: ‘‘Know ye not, that so many of us as were 
baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? There- 
fore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like 
as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, 
even so we also should walk in newness of life’’ (vs. 3, 4). 
Here the Apostle states that the Christian can not consistently 
sin, because he has died to the life of sin and risen to a new 
life in Christ. As Christ died, was buried, and arose to a life 
of glory in heaven, so the Christian’s separation from sin and 
regeneration in order to a new life of holiness is symbolized 
by the figurative burial in the water of baptism and his being 
raised therefrom to live a new life. But sprinkling can not be 
a symbolic burial and resurrection; therefore the mode of bap- 
tism as Paul knew it was immersion, which is comparable both 
to Christ’s death and resurrection, and also to the believer’s 
death to sin and resurrection to holiness. That the passage under 
consideration is descriptive of the mode of primitive baptism is 
admitted by leading commentators, including some of those whose 
denominations favor sprinkling. Conybeare and Howson say, 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 563 


‘‘This passage can not be understood unless it be understood that 
the primitive baptism was by immersion.’’ Dr. Shaff says, 
‘* All commentators of note (except Stuart and Hodge) expressly 
admit, or take it for granted, that in this verse ... the ancient 
prevailing mode of baptism by immersion and emersion is im- 
pled as giving additional force to the going down of the old man 
and the rising up of the new man.”’ 

(5) The Testemony of History. The writings of the early 
church fathers furnish conclusive evidence that baptism was by 
immersion in the early Christian centuries. The quotation of 
a few passages from very many left us by the early fathers is 
sufficient proof. Tertullian says of baptism, ‘‘A man is let down 
into the water, and while a few words are spoken is immersed.”’ 
Hermas says, ‘‘This seal igs water, into which men descend ap- 
pointed to death, but from which they ascend appointed to life.’’ 
Clement says in Fragment from Eusebius, Book IV., chapter 
62, A Christian is one who knows God, who believes in Christ, 
who possesses the grace of God, and who has been dipped in the 
sacred laver.’’ Basil, A. D. 320, ‘‘Imitating the burial of Christ 
by the baptism ; for the bodies of those immersed are, as it were, 
buried in the water.”’ 

All reliable church historians concur in stating that immersion 
was the primitive mode of baptism. In writing on the first 
century Fisher says, History of the Christian Church, p. 41: 
‘“The ordinary mode of baptism was by immersion.’’ Mosheim, 
Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 1, Part II, Chapter 5: ‘‘In this 
[the first] century baptism was administered, in convenient 
places, without the public assemblies; and by immersing the 
candidates wholly in water.’’ Neander, Church History, Vol. 1., 
Section III, Part IV: ‘‘In respect to the form of baptism, it was 
in conformity to the original institution and the original import 
of the symbol, performed by immersion, only in cases of the sick 
by sprinkling.’’ Shaff, History of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 
II, Book IV: ‘‘ Finally, as to the outward mode of administering 
this ordinance; immersion, and not sprinkling, was unquestion- 
ably the original, normal form.’’ Coleman, Christian Antiqui- 
ties, Chronological Index.—‘Immersion or dipping. In the 
primitive church this was undeniably the common mode of bap- 
tism. The utmost that can be said of sprinkling in that early 
period is, that it was, in case of necessity, permitted ag an ex- 


564 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ception to the general rule.’’ From the foregoing and many 
other fathers and church historians who might be cited, it is 
clear that sprinkling or pouring was not considered valid except 
in case of the impossibility of immersion. And G. P. Fisher 
states that there is no record of sprinkling or pouring for bap- 
tism until the second century, which was when ritualism began 
to become prominent. 

An erroneous idea is all too prevalent that sprinkling sup- 
planted immersion as baptism from the time sprinkling began to 
be practised. The fact is that in the Hastern churches it has 
never supplanted immersion and in the West immersion was 
the common mode of baptism until the thirteenth century. Thom- 
as Aquinas, who was a leading theological writer of the Church 
of Rome in the middle of that century, though defending sprink- 
ling, said, ‘‘The symbol of Christ’s burial is more expressively 
represented by immersion, and for that reason this mode of bap- 
tizing is more common and commendable .... It is safer to 
baptize by immersion because this is the more common use.’’ 
Hagenbach, History of Doctrines, Vol. 2: ‘‘From the thirteenth 
century, sprinkling came into more general use in the West. 
The Greek church, however, and the Church of Milano still re- 
tain the practise of immersion.’’ Brenner (A Roman Catholic), 
Historical Exhibition of the Adminstration of Baptism from 
Christ to Our Times: ‘‘Thirteen hundred years was baptism 
generally and regularly an immersion of the person under the 
water, and only in extraordinary cases a sprinkling or pouring 
with water; the latter was, moreover, disputed as a mode of 
baptism, nay, even forbidden.’’ 

Romish theologians do not pretend to hold that sprinkling 
has the support of Scripture or that it was practised by the 
early church, but regard it as valid solely on the ground that 
the church has the right to change ceremonies. The reformers con- 
tinued the practise of sprinkling because it had become the com- 
mon mode in their day. Yet Luther in his De Sacramento Bap- 
tismt, and Calvin in his Institutes, state that immersion was the 
original and Scriptural mode. In the English church where 
immersion was the common mode prior to the Reformation, that 
mode was continued until 1549, when sprinkling began to be 
admitted for weak children. The law of the English church even 
to the present day recommends immersion as the regular mode, 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 565 


but the practise of it has become the exception. Though the 
Presbyterian Church teaches and practises affusion as baptism, 
yet Dr. Lightfoot, who presided over the Westminster Assembly 
when the Confession of Faith was formed states that a change 
of one vote would have made immersion rather than pouring 
the rule of the Presbyterian Church (Works, Vol. 18, p. 299). 
So great was the number of those who favored immersion in 
the Westminster Assembly. 

(6) Practise of the Eastern Churches. The Greek churches 
have always practised immersion and do at the present time. 
They baptize infants, but always by the mode of immersion. 
In some of these churches Greek has always been the vernacular ; 
therefore they have been better qualified to define the meaning 
of the term and less liable to vary their practise from its true 
significance. Their rigid adherence to immersion and absolute 
repudiation of other forms is a strong argument for their prac- 
tise being the Biblical and primitive form. The Russian Cate- 
chism of the Greek Orthodox Church says on baptism, ‘* This they 
hold to be a point necessary, that no part of the child be un- 
dipped in water.’’ In Ancient Christianity, Chapter XIX., Cole- 
man says, ‘‘The Eastern Church has uniformly retained the form 
of immersion as indispensable to the validity of the ordinance, 
and they repeat the rite wherever they have received to their 
communion persons who have been baptized in another manner.”’ 

(7) Evidence of the Baptisteries. A class of material proofs 
of the early practise of immersion is the ancient baptisteries 
found in all parts of ancient Christendom. These are found in 
the churches themselves or in an adjacent building for the pur- 
pose. These date as early as the fourth century and as late as 
the thirteenth. In his work on Baptism and Baptisteries, Dr. 
Cote states that these are in diameter sometimes as much as 
twenty-five feet and in depth usually more than three feet. 
Doubtless these ancient baptisteries were made and used for 
immersion. Their size and proportions, also the steps by which 
one might descend into them, are clear evidences that they were 
not intended for sprinkling or pouring. 

(8) Objections to Immersion Considered. The large amount 
of positive evidence that immersion is baptism is reason enough 
for passing by any objection to the validity of that mode. Those 
who practise other modes almost all admit that immersion is 


566 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


valid baptism. But they affirm that this is not the only valid 
mode. They allow that immersion was practised by the apostolic 
church, but hold that it was not uniformly practised. In sup- 
port of their theory they attempt to show that the term BantiCw 
(baptizo) may include sprinkling, as well as immersion. But 
they fail to prove this point and in view of the strong proofs 
to the contrary already stated we need not take space here for 
a detailed discussion of their reasoning, 

A common objection to immersion is that the mode is not 
essential and that a little water applied to the believer is as 
good as if he were immersed in much. It is reasoned that even 
though primitive baptism was immersion, yet because it is but 
an outward rite the church hds the right to change its form. 
But God has not granted to any man the liberty to change any 
divinely instituted ordinance. Because baptism is designed to 
symbolize certain gospel truths, therefore to change its form 
so it fails accurately to represent those truths is not less ob- 
jectionable than to change the words of Scripture, which are 
another divinely chosen means of exhibiting the truth. As 
strict adherence to the divine form was important to the proper 
construction of the Mosaic tabernacle (Heb. 8:5) because it was 
symbolic, so strict adherence to the divinely given form of bap- 
tism is important to Christian baptism. 

Again it is objected that immersion is inconvenient and some- 
times dangerous. But there is no reason for believing God 
makes man’s convenience the first point of importance in es- 
tablishing ordinances. Doubtless most, if not all, the many 
ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic law were inconvenient 
for observance. This must have been true of the observance of 
the Sabbath by the busy farmer, or of the great loss of time in 
making three annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem to the great 
feasts, also of the many cleansings and sacrifices required. It 
may rather be reasoned that in giving a positive command to test 
man’s obedience, God would especially choose one that would in- 
volve inconvenience to those who observe it. Yet opposers of 
immersion are liable to overstress the inconvenience of immersion. 
Those who believe in immersion do not usually find its observance 
a matter of great inconvenience. Likewise the danger of going 
into the water is often overestimated by objectors to immersion. 
No ill effects as to health are found to follow the practise of 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 567 


immersion by those who practise it, and it sometimes brings 
physical benefit. If one is dying or too sick to be immersed, 
he is under no obligation to be baptized. It is not a saving 
ordinance; therefore if its observance is not possible it is not 
required. 

But it is further objected that immersion would have been 
impossible in some of the baptisms described in the Scriptures. 
The objector affirms that for lack of time John the Baptist could 
never have immersed all the multitudes who came to be baptized 
by him, and that there was neither enough time nor sufficient 
water in Jerusalem to immerse the three thousand converts on 
the day of Pentecost. In reply let it be remarked first that if 
the same words are repeated in each instance, but little if any 
more time will be required for immersing a person than is needed 
to sprinkle him. No figures are given as to the exact number 
baptized by John, for which reason the objector can not properly 
say he could not have immersed all whom he is said to have 
baptized. As to the time necessary for the baptizing of the three 
thousand at Jerusalem, if all the ministers, the Twelve and the 
Seventy, whom Jesus had employed prior to that time were 
present, which is probable, there would have been but thirty- 
seven persons for each minister to immerse. Even if only the 
Twelve were engaged in their baptizing the entire three thousand 
might easily have been baptized in a few hours’ time. 

It is certain that in Jerusalem there was no lack of water in 
which to immerse them, as has often been wrongly affirmed. 
Jerusalem has no large stream near it, but it has many large 
pools or artificial lakes, any one of which might have served 
for the immersion of the three thousand. The Bible mentions 
some of these pools by name. The dimensions of six of them are 
given in feet by Dr. Robinson as follows: ‘‘Pool of Bethesda 
360x130x75 deep; Upper Gihon 316x200 to 218x18 deep at the 
ends; Lower Gihon 592x245 to 275x385 to 42 at ends; Pool of 
Hezekiah 240x144; Pool of Siloam 53x18x19 deep; The Kings 
Pool 15x6’’ (Researches, Vol. 1, pp. 328-848). The gradually 
descending sides of these by successive platforms afford con- 
venience for bathing or baptizing. 

(9) Sprinkling and Pouring. As the Greek Bantitw (bap- 
tizo) has been shown to signify immersion, so the common Greek 
terms signifying sprinkle and pour are never used of Christian 


568 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


baptism. Uncritical persons sometimes attempt to find support 
for sprinkling for baptism in certain texts in which the word 
sprinkle oceurs. ‘‘So shall he sprinkle many nations.’’ Accord- 
ing to the preceding verse it is Christ who is to sprinkle those 
nations. But baptism is performed by the preachers. The text 
does not state that this is a baptism, nor is the sprinkling said 
to be with water. As the ceremonial cleansings under the Mosaic 
law were accomplished by the sprinkling of the sacrificial blood 
about on the altar of God, so Christ’s blood is represented as 
sprinkled upon men’s hearts in order to their cleansing from 
sin. See Heb. 12:24; 10:22; 1 Pet. 1:2. That the text under 
consideration refers to such sprinkling is evident from the pre- 
ceding verse in which the sufferings of Jesus are described. 
Another text supposed to teach sprinkling as baptism is Ezek. 
36:25, 26. “‘Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye 
shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, 
will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you.’’ The 
sprinkling here, as in the preceding text, is divinely accom- 
plished. It evidently is not a mere sprinkling of water, which 
could not cleanse from moral filthiness and idols. Only the blood 
of Christ can do this. 

The argument for pouring as baptism is principally a reas- 
oning from analogy. The Holy Spirit baptism is said to be by 
a pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the subject; therefore it is 
reasoned that water baptism must be by a pouring out of water 
upon him who is baptized with water. The argument will not 
stand careful scrutiny. First, such a conclusion ignores all the 
positive proofs which have been set forth that baptism is im- 
mersion. Second, the supposed analogy does not exist. The 
Holy Spirit is a person, not a mere substance that may be meas- 
ured and separated as water. Therefore the pouring out of him 
must be figurative. In the discussion concerning the baptism 
by the Holy Spirit in a former chapter, the nature of the out- 
pouring of the Spirit was shown to be literally only an over- 
whelming measure of his working in and through the subject. 
It is properly represented as a baptism and an outpouring when 
contrasted with the operation of the Spirit through men in a 
lesser degree in pre-Christian times. As in immersion in water 
one is overwhelmed, so in the baptism by the Holy Spirit his 
operation and influence is in overwhelming measure. 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 569 


(10) Trine Immersion. Trine, or threefold, immersion has 
been practised not only by certain Protestant bodies, but has been 
widely practised in the Hastern churches from an early date. 
Doubtless the two extra dips were added when the simple act 
of baptism began to be surrounded by that elaborate ritual 
which has been described as marking the early stages of the 
apostasy. 

But the Seriptures do not require nor favor trine immersion. 
Those who practise it depend for Scriptural support upon the 
baptismal formula as found in the Great Commission. ‘‘Go ye 
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’’ (Matt. 
28:19). They assume that three actions are here commanded 
because baptism is to be in the names of the three persons. But 
the construction requires no such interpretation, neither are 
similar constructions elsewhere so interpreted. The simplest and 
best disproof of the trine immersionist’s interpretation of this 
text is its comparison with parallel constructions in other texts. 
‘‘And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and 
west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, 
in the kingdom of heaven’’ (Matt. 8:11). As three distinct 
persons are named in the baptismal formula, so three distinct 
persons are named in this text. As an act is enjoined in relation 
to each of these persons of the divine Trinity, so is an act to be 
performed in relation to each of the patriarchs named. But 
if a separate immersion is required for each member of the 
Trinity, then there must be three sittings down in the kingdom 
of heaven, for the construction is the same. Those coming into 
the kingdom must sit down first with Abraham, arise and sit 
down with Isaac, and again arise and sit down a third time with 
Jacob, But all who are familiar with the use of language know 
no such repeated sitting and rising is taught. Likewise trine 
immersion is not taught in the baptismal formula. 

‘‘For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of 
him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in 
his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels”’ 
(Luke 9:26). Here is an elliptical sentence of similar construc- 
tion to the baptismal formula. If the latter teaches three dips, 
the former must teach three distinct comings of Christ—the 
first in his own glory, the second in the Father’s glory, and the 


570 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


third in the glory of the angels. But we know it does not teach 
three comings of Christ, and therefore deny that the Commission 
enjoins trine immersion. 

Further reason for rejecting trine immersion is that the 
apostles usually baptized only in the name of the Lord Jesus. 
‘‘Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.’ 
(Acts 2:38). Others were baptized in the name of the Lord 
Jesus (Acts 10:48; 8:16; 19:5). With such a formula trine 
immersion is excluded. Also since baptism is symbolic of cleans- 
ing from sin and of a death to sin, burial, and resurrection to 
newness of life a plurality of immersions is incongruous with that 
symbolized. Had Jesus intended three immersions he would 
have so plainly stated it, as repetition in Old Testament ordinance 
is clearly specified. Because he has not commanded three dips 
we have no obligation to so practise and should not so practise 
baptism. 

2. Subjects of Baptism.—The question as to who are proper 
subjects for baptism, like the question concerning the mode, 
has been the subject of much controversy. The unscriptural 
practises which have led to differences concerning both of these 
points had their beginning in a departure from the faith in the 
early period of the great apostasy. The principal question for 
consideration under this heading is concerning the baptism of 
infants. 

(1) Only the Regenerated Eligible. Throughout the New 
Testament baptism is represented as being for those who have 
been already regenerated, or who have repented and believed, 
which are the conditions for and which imply regeneration. 
It may be assumed that John the Baptist refused to baptize cer- 
tain impenitent Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 3:8, 9). On 
the day of Pentecost, ‘‘Peter said unto them, Repent, and be bap- 
tized every one of you’’ (Acts 2:38). All those who were bap- 
tized were believers. ‘‘When they believed Philip preaching 
the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of 
Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women’’ (Acts 
8:12). Those who were baptized were old enough to understand 
and believe the gospel message—they were ‘‘men and women.’’ 
They believed before they were baptized. ‘‘And many of the 
Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized’’ (Acts 18:8). 
It was even after Paul and Cornelius had received the baptism 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 571 


of the Holy Ghost that they were baptized. Because repentance 
and faith are prerequisite to baptism, infants can not be proper 
subjects for baptism. 

(2) Arguments for Infant Baptism Considered. If elaborate 
argument is desirable in refuting infant baptism it certainly 
can not be because it is supported by strong arguments, but only 
because of the tenacity with which it is held by its adherents. 
Its validity is maintained on a variety of grounds, some of which 
are contradictory to others. Romanists profess to hold it only 
on the authority of their church and deny that it has any Bib- 
lical support. They charge Protestants who practise it with in- 
consistently following tradition in violation of the Protestant 
profession that the Scriptures are the proper rule of faith. 
Luther and other reformers admitted that infant baptism has 
no New Testament authority, yet they taught and practised it. 
Many Protestants endeavor to find support for it in the Abra- 
hamie covenant. Some endeavor to find Scripture precepts 
or example supporting it, while many careful thinkers deny that 
it can be so upheld, though they allow it on other grounds. If 
the practise has any sound Scriptural basis, one would suppose 
all who practise it would have reached a fair measure of agree- 
ment as to that basis. The absence of such agreement is ground 
for the inference that no such Scriptural basis exists.’ If God 
had intended infant baptism it is proper to suppose he would 
have given clear directions concerning it in the Bible. 

Matt. 19: 18-15 is supposed to support infant baptism. ‘‘Then 
were brought unto him little children, that he should put his 
hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.’’ 
But this text states that these little children were brought, not to 
be baptized, but that he might lay his hands on them, There is 
no hint that Jesus baptized them. Were it true that he had been 
practising infant baptism, surely on this occasion near the end 
of his ministry his disciples would have understood that little 
children might properly be brought to him for that purpose. 
The fact that they forbade the bringing of the infants to Jesus 
is proof that he had not practised nor ordained infant baptism. 
Another text used to support infant baptism is Acts 2:38, 39. 
‘*Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift 
of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your 


572 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ehildren.’’ But in referring to children (vy. 39) it is not bap- 
tism that is promised, but the ‘‘Holy Ghost.’’ Therefore if 
‘‘children’’ here means infants, then these may receive the Holy 
Spirit with all that is implied in receiving him. But ‘‘children”’ 
here is used in the sense merely of posterity. It is often so used 
in the Seriptures. 

Much is made also by those who favor infant baptism of the 
baptism of households such as that of Lydia (Acts 16:15), of 
the jailer (vs. 32-34), and of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16). It has 
been assumed there were infants in these households and that 
they were baptized on the faith of the parents. But there is no 
evidence there were children in any of these families, The 
family of Lydia are described. as ‘‘brethren’’ (v. 40), and 
therefore were not infants. A mother of infant children would 
scarcely be engaged in business as was Lydia. The jailer’s 
entire family were old enough to believe (v. 34) ; therefore were 
not infants. The household of Stephanas are said to have ‘‘ad- 
dicted themselves to the ministry of the saints’’ (1 Cor. 16:15), 
which implies that they were not infants. Surely these texts 
prove nothing as to infant baptism. Also the argument for 
baptism of the entire household on the faith of the parent proves 
too much, for then must not only infants be baptized but all 
older sons, daughters, and servants, whether willing or unwilling, 
saved or unsaved. 

A favorite argument for infant baptism with many of its 
advocates is that the covenant of God with Abraham is per- 
petual; the new as well as the old dispensation is founded on it. 
As the natural descendants of Abraham with their natural off- 
spring were included in that covenant and were entitled to 
circumcision, so the spiritual children of Abraham with their 
natural children are included in the covenant and are entitled 
to baptism. This argument is unsound and faulty in that it 
fails properly to carry out the analogy. A more correct method 
of reasoning is that as the natural children of Abraham and 
their natural offspring are in the covenant and therefore should 
be circumcised, so the spiritual children of Abraham (believers) 
and their spiritual children are included in the covenant and 
therefore are worthy of baptism. Thus stated the method of 
reasoning is correct and the conclusion is correct. But when so 
stated it no longer lends support to infant baptism, but is antag- 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 573 


onistic to it. Also no proof exists that baptism is a substitute 
for circumcision in any sense such as that the terms for ad- 
‘mission to one are also the terms of admission to the other. This 
is clear from the fact that only males were circumcised and both 
males and females are baptized. There is no ground for the 
assumption that the faith of natural parents entitles children to 
baptism. 

Professor Moses Stuart, himself a supporter of infant bap- 
tism, admits, ‘‘Commands or plain and eertain examples in the 
New Testament relative to it I do not find.”’ 

(3) Objections to Infant Baptism. No proof can be produced 
that infant baptism was practised prior to the third century. 
Tertullian, in his work De Baptisma, which was written near 
the year 200 A. D., strongly opposed the baptism of children, 
referring not merely to new-born infants but rather to children 
somewhat older. Certainly if he considered such were not to 
be baptized, the baptism of infants was not a common practise. 
In his Commentary on Acts, Meyer says, ‘‘Concerning infant 
baptism, there is no witness before Tertullian, and it did not 
become general until after the time of Augustine. In his Church 
History, Vol. I, p. 401, Shaff says in speaking of the post-Nicene 
age, ‘‘Notwithstanding the general admission of infant baptism, 
the practise of it was by no means universal.’’ 

Proof has been previously given that the New Testament 
teaches that only believers are proper subjects of baptism. The 
Great Commission as given by Matthew requires that before one 
is baptized he is first to be taught or made a disciple, and Mark 
says, ‘‘He that believeth and is baptized.’’ Infants can not be 
Scriptural subjects for baptism, because they are incapable of 
being taught and also of believing. 

A well-founded objection to infant baptism is that it is use- 
less to those who receive it. When it began to be practised it 
was held to be the means of salvation. It is still so held by 
Romanists and some others. But the majority of evangelical 
Christians reject baptismal regeneration, also the idea that un- 
baptized infants are lost. It is sometimes argued that baptism 
places the child under the seal of the covenant and makes more 
probable his conversion later. But no evidence can be given 
that the conversion of those baptized in infancy is more probable 
than is the conversion of other children who have not been bap- 


574 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


tized in infancy. Not only is it a useless practise, but it is also 
a positively harmful one. Those baptized in infancy too often 
trust in that baptism as a means of salvation and therefore fail 
to get awakened to the necessity of repenting of sin and believing 
on Christ for salvation. Another evil consequence is the large 
proportion of unconverted church members who are such because 
of baptism in infancy. A third evil of infant baptism is the 
perversion of the ordinance so it fails to symbolize the divine 
truth intended. The lesson it teaches is consequently lost. 

3. Purpose of Baptism.—The full benefit to be derived from 
the observance of baptism is not merely the spiritual blessing 
that results from obedience to a positive commandment of God. 
Like other ordinances, baptism has a purpose. Only as the true 
significance of baptism is understood by the subject can he 
realize the full value of the rite. In some sense it is a salvation 
from sin. ‘‘ Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name 
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins’’ (Acts 2:38). ‘Arise, 
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins’’ (22:16). But in 
what sense is baptism a cleansing from sin? Evidently it is 
not a real cleansing from sin, for various reasons. 

First, it is clear from the Scriptures that salvation is, in its 
nature, not dependent upon any outward rite. Our sins are not 
washed away by the baptismal waters, but by the blood of Christ 
(Rev. 1:5; 7:14). That blood is applied on the conditions of 
repentance and faith (John 3:18; Acts 13:39; 1 John 5:1). 
Also it would be objectionable that one’s salvation should be made 
dependent upon the act of another. If one should truly repent 
and believe on Christ for pardon, but no qualified person was 
available to immerse him, who will dare to say if such an one 
should die unbaptized he would be lost? The penitent thief on 
the cross had no opportunity for baptism, but Jesus assured him 
of salvation nevertheless. Again, baptism is not a means to 
nor a prerequisite to salvation. The apostle Paul was converted 
and even received his call to preach on the Damascus road (Acts 
26: 13-18). Three days later at the hands of Ananias he received 
the Holy Ghost, ‘‘whom the world can not receive.’’ It was 
after all this that Ananias urged his baptism to wash away his 
sins. But his sins had certainly been washed away actually 
prior to that time. Therefore the washing away of sin here 
intended can be only a ceremonial cleansing. Another example 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 575 


of conversion and of the reception of the Holy Spirit prior to 
baptism is that of Cornelius. He was devout; he feared God, 
prayed alway, gave much alms, and was a ‘‘just man.’’ Later 
he received the Holy Ghost. Still later Peter baptized him. 

The outward washing by water in baptism is a symbolic 
washing from the defilement of sin. It is salvation in figure as 
were some of the Old Testament ordinances. After speaking of 
the salvation of Noah in the Ark from the flood, which is repre- 
sented as a figure of our salvation from sin, the apostle Peter 
says, ‘‘The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now 
save us’’ (1 Pet. 3:21). Here baptism is specifically represented 
as a figurative salvation and not the real cleansing from sin. 

Baptism also has still further significance. It represents the 
death and resurrection of Christ as the procuring cause of sal- 
vation, and is symbolic of the accomplishment of that purpose in 
the person who is baptized (Rom. 6:4). It points to both Christ 
and the believer. It is fitting that the atonement of Christ 
should be indicated in this rite as the means of salvation. The 
immersion and emersion from the water of the subject is his 
testimony to the world that he has died to sin and the world, 
and that he has been resurrected to a new life of holiness in 
Christ. But, as is brought out by the apostle Paul, the rising 
from the watery grave of baptism is a public testimony of belief 
in the great truth of the resurrection of the body. 

Only as immersion is practised, however, are these great 
truths represented. Those who pervert the mode lose in a great 
measure the significance and benefit of baptism, however sincere 
they may be in its observance. Not only because its practise is 
commanded, but especially because of its significance, its proper 
observance is important and should not be neglected. 

4. The Essentials of Baptism.—A few things are necessary to 
the validity of baptism, while many others often connected with 
the rite are not necessary. A running stream or natural body 
of water in which to baptize is not essential. Doubtless the bap- 
tisms in Jerusalem were in artificial pools, as that city possesses 
no natural stream or pools sufficient for baptizing. Immersion 
in a baptistery in the house of worship is valid baptism. The 
position of the body is not important. The action in baptizing 
may be either forward or backward. It is usually performed 
backward, as in a burial, by single immersionists. The adminis- 


576 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


trator of baptism need not be an ordained minister. However 
in the nature of things and also according to the examples of 
Seripture it is properly the work of ministers when they are 
available. The particular formula in the Commission need not 
be repeated verbatim in baptizing. The New Testament bap- 
tisms were often performed in the name of the Lord Jesus. 
Neither is the validity of baptism dependent upon the extent of 
the subject’s knowledge of the significance of baptism, or other 
divine truth. Nor is one’s baptism invalid because of a lack of 
understanding and support of correct Scripture doctrine in all 
respects on the part of the administrator. 

The essentials are: (1) That the subject be truly regener- 
ated; (2) That he be entirely immersed in the water; (3) That 
he be immersed in the water in the name of the Trinity, or of 
Christ, and emersed therefrom; (4) That the subject believe the 
administrator to be a Christian. The subject can have no fur- 
ther responsibility than this concerning the administrator. 
Only as baptism meets these requirements is it valid. 


Ii. The Lord’s Supper 


The Lord’s Supper is properly so designated (1 Cor. 11: 20) 
because it was instituted by him and is in some sense a partaking 
of him. It is also called the communion supper (1 Cor. 10: 16) 
because of the common participation of Christians in it, and it 
is called the eucharist because of the giving of thanks (1 Cor. 
11:24). The Lord’s Supper is here conceived to be the eating 
and drinking by Christians, when assembled for the purpose, 
of the broken bread and poured out wine which are symbols of 
the broken body and shed blood of Christ, through which we 
have spiritual life. 

1. A Christian Ordinance.—The institution of the Lord’s Sup- 
per is described at length in four passages. (Matt. 26: 25-30; 
Mark 14: 22-26; Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11: 23-29). The fullest 
statement concerning its institution and observance is that by 
the apostle Paul. While eating the last Passover with his dis- 
ciples, Jesus took bread from the table, gave thanks to God, and 
parting it gave it to his disciples telling them to eat it. Then 
he took wine and distributed it among them. These were in 
some sense his body and blood. This rite wag to be observed in 
commemoration of his death. 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 577 


That Jesus intended in that first communion supper to estab- 
lish a rite for universal and perpetual observance is shown by 
his words, ‘‘This do in remembrance of me’”’ (Luke 22:19). 
The very fact that it was to be observed as a memorial is proof 
that it was to continue to be celebrated after his death. Its 
perpetual observance as an ordinance is clearly enjoined by the 
apostle Paul, who wrote the 1 Corinthian epistle almost thirty 
years after Jesus’ death. ‘‘For as often ag ye eat this bread, 
and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come’”’ 
(1 Cor. 11:26). Yet further evidence that the Lord’s Supper 
is an ordinance is found in the fact that the apostolic churches 
did observe it (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 10:16; 11:20). Also in all 
subsequent ages among almost all Christians it has been regarded 
as an ordinance obligatory on all Christians. 

2. Method of Observance.—The essentials of the Supper are 
six: blessing, breaking, pouring, giving, eating, and drinking. 
The omission of any of these would deprive the rite of its true 
character and significance. Both the synoptists and Paul gave 
very special mention of the blessing, or, as Luke and Paul say, 
the giving of thanks. There is no Scriptural ground for the 
common assumption that the blessing was of the bread. God 
was blessed, or thanked, for the elements of the Supper. That 
this blessing was a giving of thanks is stated in Luke 22:19 
and in 1 Cor. 11:24. In the records of Matthew and Mark it is 
said of the wine that Jesus gave thanks. Nothing is said of 
blessing it. And according to many respectable manuscripts, 
Matthew and Mark also state that Jesus gave thanks for the 
bread. On the account by Matthew, Adam Clarke gays, ‘‘But 
what was it that our Lord blessed? Not the bread, though many 
think the contrary, being deceived by the word 7t, which is im- 
properly supplied in our Version. In all the four places re- 
ferred to above, whether the word ‘blessed’ or ‘gave thanks’ is 
used, it refers not to the bread, but to God, the dispenser of 
every good.’’ Because this blessing affords no evidence that the 
elements were blessed by Christ or by men in the communion 
supper, there is less ground on which to rest the unscriptural 
theories of the nature of the Supper such as transubstantiation 
and consubstantiation. 

The breaking of the bread and pouring out of the wine are 
necessary to signify the breaking of his body and shedding of 


578 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


his blood in atonement. But also it is necessary that the bread 
be parted that it may be distributed to and eaten by the partici- 
pants. Because of the nature of the flat, Oriental loaves the 
bread was broken, not cut. The essential thing is that the bread 
be parted for distribution, whether it be broken or cut. Jesus’ 
body was cut rather than broken by the nails and the spear. 
The eating and drinking are essential in that they signify the 
relation of the individual to the atonement of Christ. The com- 
munion is in both kinds—the bread and the wine. The Roman- 
ists in withholding the cup from the laity pervert the ordinance 
and deny to them the benefit of this aspect of the rite. 

The elements Jesus used were unleavened bread and the 
Juice of the grape. That the bread was unleavened is certain 
from the fact that at the time of the Passover no leaven was 
permitted to be found in the houses of Israelites. Whether the 
absence of leaven in the communion bread can be definitely 
shown to be required is questionable. But inasmuch as leaven 
is commonly a type of sin in Scripture symbols, it is appropriate 
that it should not be used in the communion bread, which is 
symbolic, not only of the sinless Christ, but also of his holy 
church. Most careful students of the subject affirm that the 
common wine of Palestine in Jesus’ time, as at present, con- 
tained a small per cent of aleohol. Though it can not be proved 
that Jesus did not use such, yet doubtless fermentation of the 
communion wine is not necessary to the validity of the ordi- 
nances, and because of the prevalence of the sin of drunkenness 
in modern times and the strong sentiment against intoxicants, 
unfermented grape juice is preferable. 

It is stated that Jesus and his disciples ‘‘sung an hymn”’ 
after the supper (Matt. 26:30), but that hymn was probably 
the last half of the great hallel (Psa. 113-118, according to 
Edersheim and others), and was connected with the Passover 
rather than the Lord’s Supper. While the singing of an appro- 
priate hymn may form a proper closing for the Lord’s Supper, 
yet it is not an essential of it. Though it is called a supper and 
was instituted by Jesus in the evening, yet there is nothing in 
the nature of it, and no principle or precept of Scripture, that 
limits its observance to a particular period of the day. Con- 
cerning the frequency of the celebration of the Supper the 
Scriptures are silent. A daily (Acts 2:46) and a weekly (Acts 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 579 


20:7) observance are assumed to have been practised, but 
there is no certainty in either instance that this ordinance is 
referred to, and if so there would be no ground for assuming 
that such practises are precedents for us to follow. It should 
not be observed so frequently that it becomes common and un- 
impressive, neither should it be observed so seldom that its value 
is missed. Fixed times for its observance are important to 
avoid its neglect. 

It should be celebrated in the assembled church, not by the 
individual in solitude. Only in the company of others can its 
observance ‘‘show forth’’ the truth intended. The proper ad- 
ministrators of this ordinance are the divinely appointed officers 
of the church, the elders and deacons. In the absence of these, 
however, other devout members of a congregation may be ap- 
pointed to administer it. 

All who are regenerated and therefore members of the church 
are eligible to partake of the communion supper. Those who 
walk disorderly are unworthy to partake of it (1 Cor. 11:19), 
because they are not saved. A common view is that only bap- 
tized persons are fit to participate in the communion feast. 
Those religious bodies who hold baptismal regeneration or who 
make baptism the mode of entrance to the church consistently 
eonform to that view. But if regeneration precedes baptism and 
makes one a member of God’s church, then in the nature of the 
ease every regenerated person is worthy to partake of the em- 
blems of the broken body and shed blood of Christ. ‘‘Close 
ecommunion’’ in the modern sense of the term, which excludes 
all who are not members of and do not accept the creed of a 
particular denomination is without Seriptural support. On the 
other hand, those should not participate in the communion sup- 
per who have not been converted, or who have backslidden and 
openly lived a disorderly life. 

3. Purpose of the Supper.—The Lord’s Supper is, like bap- 
tism, an outward act symbolic of spiritual experience. As sins 
can not be cleansed away by literal water in baptism, so the soul 
ean not be fed in any literal sense with material bread and wine. 
The purpose of the rite is so to represent to the participant and 
also to others a great and fundamental truth of religion and the 
participant’s relation to that truth that they will be vividly im- 
pressed with its reality. Like baptism, the observance of this 


580 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ordinance has value as does the preaching of the Word of God, 
only in a greater degree. Ag the reading of the Scriptures or 
hearing them preached edifies the soul, so does the observance 
of this ordinance edify, and even in a greater measure. Of what 
then is this ordinance symbolic? 

(1) The broken bread and the wine poured forth are sym- 
bols of the atoning sufferings and death of Christ. ‘‘As often 
as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s 
death till he come.’’ In themselves, apart from their use, they 
represent the fact of Christ’s atonement. (2) The eating of 
the bread and drinking of the wine by the participant is sym- 
bolic of his personal trust in the atonement of Christ, for his 
individual salvation and for the sustenance of his spiritual life, 
or the continuation of his acceptance with God. The partaking 
of the elements symbolizes, not only the fact of our appropria- 
tion of the atonement of Christ, but also the method of that ap- 
propriation, which is by union with Christ himself. (3) It isa 
commemoration of the death and sufferings of Christ. ‘‘This do 
in remembrance of me.’’ When a devout person looks upon the 
symbolic broken body and shed blood of his Savior and in par- 
taking of them is forcibly reminded that his Savior’s sufferings 
were for him, his love and gratitude to Christ are increased. 
This ordinance is a monument of a great event. As the Pass- 
over of the Mosaic dispensation was predictive of the great truth 
of sacrificial atonement, so the Lord’s Supper is commemorative 
of the same truth. (4) It is also representative of the unity of 
Christians in the one body, the church. ‘‘For we being many 
are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one 
bread’’ (1 Cor. 10:17). As the many fractions of that one loaf 
are eaten by many, by which they become united in the eating 
of the one loaf, so because all Christians have partaken of the 
one Christ and he dwells in all are they all one body. Whatever 
other benefits may be derived from the observance of this holy 
rite, at least these truths are symbolized by it. 

4. Erroneous Views.—This rite has been for many centuries 
the subject of much error and of fierce controversy. Both 
Romanists and Protestants have greatly perverted the truth 
concerning it. The chief point of error is relative to the manner 


in which Christ is present in the bread and wine, or the meaning 


of the words, ‘‘This is my body... . This is my blood.’’ Here 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 581 


Romanism has erred and here was the point of controversy be- 
tween the reformers, Luther and Zwingli. 

The Romish view is that of transubstantiation. The theory 
that the bread and wine of the communion supper become, 
through priestly consecration, the real body and blood of Christ 
was first set forth in orderly statement in the ninth century, but 
not until the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, did it become a 
dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. As it was later set forth 
by the Council of Trent the doctrine includes five main points: 
(1) When the priest speaks the words of consecration over the 
elements they instantly cease to be bread and wine except in 
appearance—color, form and taste—and in substance are entirely 
changed into the real body and blood of Christ just as they 
existed upon the cross. (2) Because the body necessarily con- 
tains the spirit, therefore not only the real body and blood but 
also the soul and divinity of Christ are contained in the con- 
secrated elements. (3) Because these material elements contain 
the whole Christ, body, soul, and divinity, therefore, in the mass, 
the priest offers a proper sacrifice in atonement for sin, which is 
equally effectual with the death of Christ on the cross in propi- 
tiation for sin and in securing divine favor. (4) The elements 
which have thus become truly Christ are to be worshiped and 
adored as is God. (5) Because the entire Christ is in each par- 
ticle of the elements, the receiving of the bread is the receiving 
of the entire Christ, body, blood, and soul; and because there is 
danger of the spilling of the blood in the cup if served to the 
laity, it is to be reserved for the clergy only. 

These five points all rest on the theory of transubstantiation. 
The disproof of it is the disproof of all the other points. For 
Seriptural support the doctrine depends chiefly upon two texts. 
(1) ‘‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his 
blood, ye have no life in you’’ (John 6:53). But these words 
have no reference to the Lord’s Supper, as is evident from their 
having been spoken long before it was instituted. (2) ‘‘This is 
my body’’; ‘‘This is my blood’’ (Matt. 26:26, 28). If these 
words are to be understood literally, then the doctrine of tran- 
substantiation is Scriptural. But no proof exists that they are 
to be so interpreted. A common meaning of the verb to be is 
to signify, or to represent. This is true in all language and espe- 
cially in the Bible. Paul said, ‘‘That rock was [represented] 


582 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Christ.’’ ‘‘The seven candlesticks are [symbolize] the seven 
churches.’’ ‘‘This is [signifies] the Lord’s passover.’’ So like- 
wise, ‘‘This is | represents] my body,’’ or ‘‘this is [a symbol of] 
my blood.’’ Such an interpretation is required because a literal 
one is excluded by the fact that when these words were spoken 
Jesus was sitting with the disciples at the table in his body. It 
had been absurd for the disciples to think that the bread and 
wine he had given to them were his body and blood. Also after 
its consecration and when eaten the bread is still called bread by 
Paul. ‘‘We are all partakers of that one bread’’ (1 Cor. 10:17). 
‘‘As often as ye eat this bread’’ (11:26). The theory of tran- 
substantiation of the elements contradicts the evidence of the 
senses and any scientific test that can be applied. If we can 
not trust our senses in distinguishing the nature of the elements, 
how can we trust our senses of sight and hearing in reading or 
hearing the words of Christ concerning the Supper. The theory 
is also objectionable in that it denies the completeness of Christ’s 
past atonement by offering another. This is unscriptural pre- 
sumption. The theory has no support either in the Scripture 
or in reason, but only in the authority of the Romish Church. 

According to the Lutheran and High Church view, the bread 
and wine do not cease to be bread and wine at their consecra- 
tion, but the communicant in partaking of them also partakes 
of the real and corporeal body and blood of Christ, which, in 
an inexplainable manner, is 7n and with the consecrated bread 
and wine. This view is known as consubstantiation. It is ob- 
jectionable because it rests upon the same misinterpretation of 
Seripture as does the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation. 
According to Luther, the theory of consubstantiation requires 
the essential omnipresence of the body of Christ. But if this be 
true, as Dr. A. H. Strong has well said, ‘‘ We partake of it at 
every meal, as really as at the Lord’s Supper.’’ 

A third erroneous theory of the sense in which Christ is in 
the Supper is that advanced by Calvin and known as the mysti- 
cal presence theory. He denied any corporeal presence of the 
body and blood of Christ in the Supper, but held that his human 
nature was dynamically present, and that this mystical pres- 
ence feeds the soul of the communicant. Even though this view 
denies the corporeal presence of Christ in the elements, yet it 
rests on the same erroneous literal interpretation of the words, 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 583 


‘‘This is my body.’’ If these words mean literally it is his body, 
then they do not mean it represents his body. But flesh and 
blood do not exist in any mystical sense. As already shown the 
true sense of the words is that the bread and wine represented 
his body and blood. There is no more a mystical partaking of 
Christ in the Supper than there is a mystical cleansing of sin in 
water baptism. As baptism is representative of an inward 
cleansing, so the eating of the elements of the Lord’s Supper is 
representative of our salvation through appropriating by faith 
the benefits of Christ’s atonement. 


Ili. Foot-Washing 

While the washing of one another’s feet by Christians, in 
conformity to the example and injunction of Jesus (John 13: 
2-17), has not been so generally regarded as an ordinance as 
have baptism and the Lord’s Supper, yet it has been practised 
in obedience to that commandment, as a rite, by many through- 
out the past Christian centuries as well ag at the present time. 
As the mode and purpose of baptism and the Lord’s Supper 
were much perverted at an early date, so was also the practise 
of foot-washing among Christians. Yet the practise, in obedi- 
ence to Jesus’ commandment, has ever persisted among Chris- 
tians. 

Tertullian, who wrote near the close of the second century, 
mentions foot-washing as a common practise of the Christians 
of his time in obedience to the commandment of Jesus. ‘‘The 
post-Apostolic age understood the example thus given [by Jesus] 
to be mandatory. Augustine (Epist. ad Januarium) testifies 
that it was followed on Maundy Thursday by the Church of his 
day’’ (Shaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge). 
Bernard of Clairvaux recommended foot-washinge and regarded 
it as being a sacrament. Though the practise has been greatly 
perverted, yet it is still observed both in the Greek Orthodox 
and Roman Catholic Churches, each year on the Thursday pre- 
ceding Easter, by the higher clergy or other persons of rank. 
At that time it is practised by the patriarch of Constantinople, 
the pope, a number of bishops, monastic superiors, and (until 
recent years) the emperors of Russia and Austria, and the kings 
of Spain, Portugal, and Bavaria. Each of these washed the feet 
of twelve old men invited for the purpose or twelve priests. It 


584 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


was the evident insincerity in the practise on the part of these 
dignitaries that led Luther to oppose the practise as ‘‘that hypo- 
eritical foot-washing, in which one stoops to wash the feet of 
his inferior, but expects still more humility in return.’’ Doubt- 
less such opposition from one so prominent in the early mold- 
ing of Protestant practises and beliefs has had a great influence 
in excluding the practise among Protestants. 

Yet not a few Protestant bodies have practised it. M’Clin- 
tock and Strong say, ‘‘The Church of England at first carried 
out the letter of the command.’’ Until the reign of James II 
the English kings washed the feet of the poor on Maundy Thurs- 
day. The practise of foot-washing in the Church of England 
has long since fallen into disuse. The Anabaptists were very 
strongly in favor of foot-washing, regarding it as an ordinance 
on the ground of John 13:14 and 1 Tim. 5:10. It was also 
observed by the early Moravians in connection with their love 
feasts. It is practised as an ordinance at present by the Men- 
nonites, Church of the Brethren, Winebrennarians, many of the 
smaller Baptist bodies, and the church of God: Therefore, in- 
cluding the older communions the majority of Christians are 
members of churches which practise foot-washing in some man- 
ner. 

1. The Injunction of Jesus—The leading text of Scripture 
bearing on foot-washing among Christians is that found in John 
13: 2-17. The washing of the disciples’ feet by Jesus took place 
on the occasion of the last Passover supper. The expression 
‘‘and supper being ended’’ (v. 2) may better be understood to 
mean the preparation of the supper being ended, for by com- 
parison of what follows in this chapter with the accounts of the 
Synoptic Gospels the foot-washing evidently preceded the eating 
of the supper. Probably there was strife among the disciples 
as to who should have the places of honor at the table when they 
began to take their places, which may have been the immediate 
cause for Jesus’ doing what he did. ‘‘He riseth from supper, 
and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded him- 
self. After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to 
wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel where- 
with he was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter 
saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered 
and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 585 


shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never 
wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou 
hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not 
my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to 
him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is 
clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew 
who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean. 
So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, 
and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I 
have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say 
well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have 
washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For 
I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done 
to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater 
than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent 
him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them”’ 
(John 18: 4-17). 

The act of Jesus was a literal washing of their feet. He then 
said, ‘‘Know ye what I have done to you?’’ implying that they 
did not and therefore going ahead to explain. He told them that 
as he had washed their feet so they ‘‘ought to wash one another’s 
feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I 
have done to you.’’ The words ‘‘ought’’ and ‘‘should’’ imply 
obligation or duty. That obligation was to wash the feet of 
one another as he had washed theirs. He washed theirs literal- 
ly; therefore their duty was literally to wash the feet of one 
another. An ‘‘example’’ is for imitation, and to imitate his 
example is literally to wash the feet of one’s brother. 

Much is made of discriminating between foot-washing ag a 
Christian practise and as an ordinance. That the practise is 
commanded is clear and Christians are obligated to do it. Prob- 
ably the question of whether it is to be termed an ordinance is 
not so important as it has sometimes been assumed to be by those 
who do not practise it. It is noticeable that those who deny 
that it is an ordinance usually fail to observe it as a practise 
and therefore fail to keep a plain commandment. But reasons 
exist for believing it is an ordinance. It has the criteria of an 
ordinance, as given by Dr. Harvey in a quotation at the begin- 
ning of this chapter. From what may be known from baptism 
and the Lord’s Supper, the marks of an ordinance are: (1) 


586 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


That it be instituted by divine authority; (2) That it be an 
outward act practised by Christ; (3) That it be divinely en- 
joined to be practised by all Christians perpetually; (4) That 
it represent an important religious truth and the Christian’s 
relation thereto. Ag surely as these marks are to be found in 
baptism or the Lord’s Supper, they are to be found in the in- 
stitution of foot-washing. 

There can be no doubt that Jesus instituted foot-washing as 
a Christian practise. Jesus himself practised it in giving an 
example to his disciples. It is symbolic of the great religious 
truth that Christians humbly serve one another through love. 
He also clearly commanded his disciples to wash one another’s 
feet. And what he commanded the first disciples to observe is 
commanded to all Christians, for he told them to teach others 
‘‘to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you’’ 
(Matt. 28:20). In comparison, neither baptism nor the Lord’s 
Supper has surer marks of being an ordinance than does foot- 
washing. Jesus himself states that he had washed their feet; 
his act is described in greater detail than is his baptism or the 
institution of the Supper; he said it was an example that they 
should follow; he said they ought to do it; and finally he told 
them they would be happy if they did do it. No such promise 
as this is connected with either of the other ordinances. 

The teaching concerning foot-washing is so clear, and the in- 
junction to Christians to observe it so definite, that many devout 
Christians feel obligated to practise it even though their denomi- 
nation ignores it. Probably the omission of it by so many Pro- 
testant bodies is partly due to the influence of Luther, who re- 
jected the literal observance of it because of his objection to the 
hypocritical practise of the pope in pretending to observe it. 
The omission of the observance of foot-washing by Protestants 
has led to many objections on their part to the obligation to 
observe it. Though these objections are often unworthy of those 
who make them, yet a consideration of the principal ones is 
proper at this point. 

2. Objections to Foot-Washing Considered—D oubtless the 
most common objection to foot-washing as a Christian practise is 
that the washing of feet was an ancient Oriental custom resulting 
from the wearing of sandals. Evidently there is some similarity 
between that washing of feet for cleanliness and this washing 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 587 


which Jesus performed and commanded. Also the common 
Oriental bathing with which Jesus was familiar was similar to 
Christian baptism, and the eating of bread and drinking of 
wine at ordinary meals among the Jews of Jesus’ time was simi- 
lar to the eating of bread and drinking of wine at the Lord’s 
Supper. But in no case was the Christian rite identical with the 
common custom, If foot-washing is to be rejected on the ground 
of the Oriental custom, then consistency requires that baptism 
and the Lord’s Supper be rejected also on similar grounds. In 
reality the old custom of washing feet for cleanliness has no 
more to do with that feet-washing Jesus practised and com- 
manded in the upper room than the common custom of bathing 
or eating supper has to do with the other ordinances. 

That this which Jesus did was not the common custom is cer- 
tain from an examination of that custom. Examples of the cus- 
tom are found in Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 48:24; Judg. 19: 
21; 2 Sam. 11:8. In all of these instances the washing was for 
cleanliness and comfort and each person washed his own feet. 
In but one instance (1 Sam. 25:40, 41) is there mention of one 
washing the feet of another person. Abigail offered to wash 
the feet of the servants of David. It was an expression of deep 
humility. Doubtless in some instances the rich and powerful 
had servants wash their feet as they did also their hands and 
heads. Peter evidently supposed at first that Jesus was follow- 
ing this custom in washing his disciples’ feet and objected on 
the ground that it was not proper that the master should wash 
the servant’s feet. When Jesus insisted on washing his feet, 
Peter, still assuming that Jesus was practising the social custom, 
consistently offered to allow Jesus to wash his hands and head 
also. But Jesus told him that because he was already bathed, 
‘“‘elean every whit,’’ including his feet, he did not need his hands 
and head washed, but only his feet. He told Peter that he did 
not understand what was being done to him; therefore it was 
not the common custom with which Peter was familiar. But 
Jesus said, ‘‘ Thou shalt know hereafter,’’ after the washing was 
completed. When he had finished washing their feet Jesus sat 
down and told them the significance of what he had done, and 
commanded them to wash one another’s feet. It was not the 
common custom of washing for cleanliness. No careful thinker 
will object to foot-washing as an ordinance on this ground. The 


588 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


weakness of this objection reminds one of the weakness of the 
objections to immersion as the true mode of baptism, which are 
resorted to to uphold an unsound position. 

A second objection is that Jesus washed their feet because 
their feet were dirty, in support of which the latter part of verse 
eleven is pointed to, ‘‘ Ye are clean, but not all.’’ It is assumed 
that the sense in which they were not all clean was that their 
feet were not clean. Those who so interpret this expression 
show that they have not carefully read the context. The pre- 
ceding clause of the sentence plainly states that they were ‘‘clean 
every whit.’’ But the following verse shows positively what is 
the sense of the words ‘‘ye are clean, but not all.’’ ‘‘For he 
knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all 
clean.’’ Judas was defiled in heart. Jesus first affirmed that 
they were ‘‘clean every whit’’ as to their bodies. Then suddenly 
passing to the question of their moral cleanness, he stated that 
they were all clean from sin except Judas. Clean feet are not 
washed for cleanliness. The washing of their feet was for a 
religious purpose. 

A third objection is that this act of Jesus was to teach the 
disciples humility. Doubtless this is true, according to Jesus’ 
own words at the time. We readily admit this, and affirm that 
it will serve the same purpose when practised today. If it was 
needed then to teach disciples their proper relation to one an- 
ether, it is equally necessary today. Therefore, allowing the 
objection, if its observance was not positively commanded and if 
it did not bear the clear marks of an ordinance, its practise 
would be desirable for the sake of its lesson. 

A fourth objection is that it is but an example of all chari- 
table works and therefore the doing of good works is a proper 
substitute and the thing commanded. Support of this objection 
is sought in 1 Tim. 5:10, where the qualifications are named 
for those widows who are to be supported by the benevolences 
of the church. ‘‘If she have brought up children, if she have 
lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have 
relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good 
work.’’ The objector assumes that because it is here listed as a 
good work it must therefore not be an ordinance. But both 
home duties and religious duties are good works. Paul here 
enumerates examples of both classes. The washing of the saints’ 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 589 


feet is the only one of the ordinances that could be named here 
which a widow could be obliged to practise. She was not eligible 
to baptize people, nor to administer the Lord’s Supper. But she 
was duty bound to wash the saints’ feet, and if she had not 
done so was not a worthy object for the church’s care. 

That the foot-washing of this text is not the common foot- 
washing of hospitality is clear from the text itself. It does not 
say, ‘‘if she have washed the feet of her children,’’ or ‘‘of the 
strangers she lodged,’’ or ‘‘of the afflicted she relieved,’’ but 
‘‘if she have washed the saints’ feet.’’ Good deeds are to be done 
to both saints and sinners indiscriminately. But this foot-wash- 
ing is to be done to the saints, by one saint to another. This 
agrees exactly with Jesus’ words to his disciples, ‘‘ Ye also ought 
to wash one another’s feet.’’ It is a practise peculiar to Chris- 
tians; therefore not a social custom. Moreover those whose feet 
Jesus washed were clean already, and it is not a good work, but 
a waste of time, to wash clean feet unless it be a religious rite 
or for another purpose than was the common custom, But as 
already shown, Jesus performed and commanded the specific 
act of washing one another’s feet, and no substitution of other 
good deeds constitutes obedience to that commandment. 

A fifth objection is that because of our dress and customs 
being different from those prevalent in Palestine in Jesus’ day, 
foot-washing is undignified and inconvenient. The same aregu- 
ment has equal weight, however, against baptism by immersion. 
It is much more inconvenient to prepare to be immersed than to 
prepare to have one’s feet washed. And how undignified it is 
to be plunged under the water and to come out possibly stran- 
gling and with one’s clothing dripping and disordered. Yet 
millions who omit foot-washing strongly support immersion. 
But dignity is determined altogether by one’s education and 
viewpoint. Certainly the sexes should separate themselves from 
one another for the observance of the rite of foot-washing, but 
when this is done the practise is not open to the charge of either 
impropriety or a lack of Christian dignity. And as to incon- 
venience, no more time is required to arrange for observing this 
ordinance than for the Lord’s Supper or baptism. But if it 
were especially inconvenient, there is no ground for assuming 
that God consulted men’s convenience when instituting the 
ordinances. 


590 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


A sixth objection is that most of the New Testament writers 
make no mention of foot-washing. In reply we say, if it is 
clearly set forth in but one place the obligation to observe it 
is as binding as if it were mentioned often. It is described at 
length and definitely enjoined in John’s Gospel. The Synoptic 
Gospels make no mention of Jesus’ washing his disciples’ feet. 
But neither do they say anything of Jesus’ teaching concerning 
the new birth. If the absence of mention of foot-washing by 
them is reason for rejecting foot-washing, it logically follows 
that the teaching of regeneration must be rejected for the same 
reason. Foot-washing is not mentioned in the Acts of the Apos- 
tles, but the Lord’s Supper is clearly referred to only once (Acts 
20:7), and that mention is but incidental. In all the twenty- 
one epistles foot-washing is mentioned only in 1 Tim. 5:10, but 
in all those epistles the Lord’s Supper is also mentioned but once 
(1 Cor. 11). It would doubtless not have been mentioned there 
except for the wrong observance of it which Paul sought to 
correct. Had there been a similar perversion of the observance 
of foot-washing, we may well suppose it would have been like- 
wise mentioned. The Scriptures do not set forth doctrine form- 
ally, but rather incidentally. This ordinance is mentioned in 
the first epistle to Timothy because there was occasion for refer- 
ring to it. Had there been other occasions there would have 
been other mention of it. 

3. Significance of Foot-Washing.—<As is true of the other ordi- 
nances, this rite has a purpose. Like them it is designed to 
teach a spiritual truth. It instructs by means of an object les- 
son. We may say of this as Augustine said of the other ordi- 
nances, ‘‘It is a kind of visible word.’’ In this it bears an in- 
timate relation to the preaching of the Word of God. As was 
true of the Lord’s Supper, the significance of this rite was made 
known when it was instituted. ‘‘Ye call me Master and Lord: 
and ye say well; for soI am. If I then, your Lord and Master, 
have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s 
feet... . The servant is not greater than his Lord’’ (John 13: 
13-16). It teaches the important lesson of humility; that we 
are not to seek to be served, but to serve our brethren. It 
signifies our true relation to each other—at our brethren’s feet 
as their servant. The humility and service here represented are 
possible only by love. And love is the greatest of all virtues. 


ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH 591 


God is love. This then is worthy to be represented by a Chris- 
tian ordinance as are the great truths represented by the other 
ordinances. Each of the three ordinances illustrates an im- 
portant relationship. Baptism shows we are dead to the world. 
The communion supper shows our relation to Christ as our 
Savior. Foot-washing shows our relationship as servants of 


each other. 


‘% 


7) 


wih 


hi i ae 


A N Bier 


¥' 





PART VII 
LAST THINGS, OR ESCHATOLOGY 


' 
i] 
) 
: 
ns 
‘ 
i 
‘ 
! 
‘ 
j 
: 
1 
wel 
tr 
\ ke 
( 
\ 
/ 


i i 
caf 
j 
an is 
' 
' 
F 
Z q ‘ 
in 
? 
' 
i 
’ 
4 
: 
i 
} 
= 
UNA 
‘ . 
ve 
r 
1 
. 
‘ 
i 
' 
, 
al 
y 
' 
i 
! 
br 
i 
: : 
¥ ’ 
{ 4" 
; a7 
ee. 
Oph | j 
‘ igi 
4 
i@ 
% y 





PART VII 
LAST THINGS, OR ESCHATOLOGY 


From the Greek term meaning ‘‘last’’ comes the name 
eschatology which is given to that division of theology that 
treats concerning the intermediate state, the second coming of 
Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, the end 
of the world, the future punishment of the wicked, and the 
future blessedness of the righteous. The subjects here to be con- 
sidered are important because only on the ground of their reality 
do the subjects previously discussed have any special concern 
for us. 


CHAPTER I 


THE LIFE AFTER DEATH 


I. Immortality of the Soul 

The subject of immortality, though not directly belonging 
to the doctrine of last things, yet underlies that doctrine, and 
it is important that it be proved at this point. It has already 
received some consideration, but more complete proofs are now 
desirable. These proofs are of two main classes—rational and 
Seriptural. 

1. Rational Evidences.—If there be no substance but matter, 
and if mental operations be dependent upon the organized mat- 
ter of the brain, then when the physical body, including the 
brain, dies and is disorganized the mind ceases to be and con- 
scious existence ends. But if spirit and body are distinct sub- 
stances, the latter may be dissolved without necessarily affect- 
ing the conscious existence of the former. That spirit and body 
are two distinct substances, entirely different in their nature, 
has been sufficiently shown in a previous division. But though 
the distinction between mind and matter as to their essential 
nature is necessary to the survival of the spirit after the death 
of the body, yet this distinction does not necessarily require that 
the spirit be immortal. There can be no immortality apart 
from such a distinction, but the mortality of the mind at the 
time of the dissolution of the body is conceivable. If the fact 


that the mind is an immaterial, simple substance were proof of 
595 


596 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


its immortal conscious existence, as some have reasoned, then 
the argument might seem to prove the immortality of the im- 
material principle in brutes as well as in men. 

(1) Sense of Moral Obligation Looks to the Future. As man 
intuitively recognizes himself as under moral obligation, so he 
intuitively believes in a life beyond this life. The fact of moral 
responsibility implies immortality. Every normal man, whether 
vood or bad, believes he shall be rewarded if he does that which 
is good and shall be punished if he does that which is evil. This 
is implied in the feeling of moral obligation. The moral nature 
of man looks to the future in this respect. But it is evident, 
even to the casual observer, that men are not rewarded or pun- 
ished according to their deserts in this life. The righteous man 
struggles stedfastly against temptation to evil, he unselfishly 
sacrifices personal advantage for the happiness of his fellow 
men, and because of supreme love for God he lives for the Di- 
vine glory, yet not infrequently throughout life he suffers from 
disease and poverty, is persecuted for righteousness’ sake, and 
possibly dies the death of a martyr. He does not receive the 
reward in this life his goodness deserves. Shall he not receive 
it in a future existence? Justice and reason unite in affirming 
that there is a future life where he will be properly rewarded. 

Likewise the wicked man sometimes sing and prospers. While 
he blasphemes God and oppresses his helpless neighbor he spreads 
himself lke the green bay-tree, and closes his earthly life in 
peace while committing atrocious crimes. He does not receive 
his Just punishment here. Men naturally expect he will receive 
it in a future life. If there were no life after death wherein 
the good man shall be rewarded and the bad man punished, 
reason would require that there ought to be. 

(2) Inferred from the Soul’s Powers. The human soul has 
capacities for indefinite improvement. Every man has powers 
that are never developed. Most men feel they are capable of 
_ attainments far beyond what their time and opportunities ever 
enable them to realize in the limits of this life. A large portion 
of the race die in infancy with their soul’s powers almost wholly 
undeveloped. Often even the greatest men believe themselves 
_ to be possessed of abilities many times greater than they have 
developed. It is reasonable to believe that infinite wisdom in 
creating these powers capable of unlimited increase has pro- 


THE LIFE AFTER DEATH 597 


vided opportunity for such advancement in an unlimited exist- 
ence beyond this life, inasmuch as the present life affords no 
such opportunity. 

(3) Earthly Life Alone Not a Satisfaction. If it were true 
that our earthly life is the full measure of our existence we 
might well inquire, ‘‘What advantageth it me?’’ For most 
men life would be without any real advantage if conscious exist- 
ence forever ends with death. Yet doubtless this life, whatever 
be one’s condition, is a blessing and something desirable. But 
we affirm that it is esteemed to be such because of what is be- 
lieved to be beyond it. For most persons this life alone has so 
large a measure of trouble and sorrow intermixed with its joys 
that the words of the Preacher may well be appropriated to 
deseribe it: ‘‘ Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.’’ If this short 
earthly life be bounded by two eternities of non-entity, if in a 
few short years we shall cease to be forever, then what advan- 
tage is present existence? In such a case, whatever blessing this 
life may bring it is not a satisfaction. The blessings of life are 
estimated in view of immortality. As men always estimate the 
advantage of material wealth, not according to the pleasure it 
brings at the present, but according to the advantage they ex- 
pect to derive from it at a future period of this life, so the best 
things of the earthly life are thought of in relation to their 
worth to us beyond this life. If there were no future existence, 
life would be indeed an enigma. 

(4) Universality of the Belief. Men everywhere and in all 
ages have been believers in a future life, though that belief has 
sometimes been obscure. The belief has been as universal as re- 
ligion, and religion is common to all nations. Only in philo- 
sophie speculation has man’s immortality been questioned. The 
universality and persistence of this idea is to be accounted for 
only on the ground that such belief is natural to man. The uni- 
versality of this belief, like that of the idea of the existence of 
God or of moral obligation, is best explained on the ground that 
it is an intuition of man’s nature. 

It is sometimes said that men expect a future life because of 
their desire for it. Doubtless such a desire for continued exist- 
ence is common to men. But that this desire is not that which 
leads men to expect a future life is evident from the fact that 
wicked men who expect future punishment do not desire con- 


598 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


tinued existence after death. Also the righteous, like Paul, some- 
times expect and desire the future life without caring for the 
earthly life. A more reasonable view is that men’s instinctive 
desire for a future life is divinely implanted and that God im- 
planted it in man’s nature because, as is true of all other divinely 
implanted desires, he has made provisions for its gratification. 
The witness of man’s nature in this respect is the testimony of 
Him who made the nature. 

In addition to the foregoing arguments is the value of belief 
in immortality. This alone is ground for holding it to be truth. 
Faith in a future life leads men to perform noble deeds, and 
to live good lives. The truth of immortality is that which gives 
meaning to the great truth of ‘salvation through Christ. 

2. The Teaching of Scripture—Though Christians appreci- 
ate the value of rational evidences of immortality, yet they 
are not dependent upon them for ground for their faith in this 
truth, but find the surest and fullest proof of the doctrine in 
the Scriptures. Immortality, like many other truths, is more 
clearly revealed in the New Testament, but it is by no means 
absent from the Old, as has been sometimes erroneously affirmed. 
But few texts of Scripture directly affirm the immortality of the 
soul, yet it is clearly implied throughout the Bible. It is im- 
plied in the idea of reward for goodness and punishment for sin, 
and especially in the idea of salvation from punishment here- 
after. These truths are ever present in the Scriptures. But for 
a more definite exhibition of the teaching of the Scriptures a few 
texts which affirm or imply the continued conscious existence of 
the spirit after death are here cited. Proofs of the survival of 
the spirit after the dissolution of the body are to most men 
sufficient evidence of immortality. 

When the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, came to 
Jesus with a question relating thereto, Jesus answered them with 
an argument based on the words of God to Moses at the burning 
bush, ‘‘T am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the 
God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the 
living’ (Matt. 22:32). From the present tense in this Old 
Testament text Jesus reasoned that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob 
were still alive, though their bodies had been buried for hundreds 
of years in the cave of Machpelah. At one stroke Jesus not only 
refuted the error of the Sadducees concerning the resurrection, 


THE LIFE AFTER DEATH 599 


but did so by showing the fallacy of their more fundamental 
error in denying that the soul still lives when the body dies. The 
reasoning of Jesus can not be mistaken. God is not the God of 
the dead, but of the living. After the death of their bodies 
God was still the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Therefore 
they were still living. But as their bodies were not living it 
must be that their souls were living. Jesus’ reasoning was 
sound. But not only did the souls of these patriarchs live after 
their bodies died, for on the same occasion Jesus said, ‘‘For all 
live unto him’’ (Luke 20:38). The souls of all men are im- 
mortal. 

Jesus also taught the immortality of the soul in his account 
of the rich man and Lazarus. ‘‘And it came to pass, that the 
beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s 
bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he 
lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, 
and Lazarus in his bosom’’ (Luke 16: 22, 23). Here both Laza- 
rus and the rich man died. Immediately after death the former 
is said to have been comforted and the latter is represented as 
having been tormented, which certainly implies that both were 
conscious. The rich man could also speak and remember. This 
is represented as having taken place in the world of departed 
spirits. It can not refer to their condition beyond the judgment 
and after the resurrection, because the five brothers of the rich 
man were still living on earth and in danger of going to that 
place. It is a matter of little difference whether this account be 
regarded as a real history or a parable. In either case its 
doctrinal teaching is the same. It would be as impious to 
charge Christ with so misrepresenting the truth in his parables 
as to mislead men, as to say he did not faithfully represent the 
truth in his literal teaching. This account in any case clearly 
teaches that men’s souls continue to live after death. 

The words of Jesus to the dying thief also clearly teach that 
the soul continues to live after death. ‘‘ Jesus said unto him, 
Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise”’ 
(Luke 23:48.) The body of the thief, like that of Jesus, died 
on the cross and was buried. It was their spirits which went to 
paradise. The very idea of being in paradise implies a state of 
felicity and therefore of conscious existence. And that state 
was to be entered, not thousands of years later as soul-sleepers 


600 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


and annihilationists affirm, but the very day on which they died 
—‘‘today.’”’ 

In their efforts otherwise to explain this text, annihilation- 
ists tell us the term ‘‘today’’ is used to qualify ‘‘say’’ and not 
‘“‘shalt be.’’? They affirm that the comma should be placed after, 
not before, the word ‘‘today.’’ Then it is interpreted that 
the thief would be with Jesus in paradise after the resurrection 
and Jesus’ assertion is merely that he affirmed it on that day— 
as if the thief might suppose he was speaking on the day before 
or the day after that on which he was speaking! To justify 
such change of the punctuation, it is said that the original record 
had no punctuation and that the placing of the comma is a 
modern invention. Doubtless the original had no comma, but 
it had a meaning, and that meaning was not absurd. Faithful 
translation into English requires such a placing of punctuation 
marks, where they are used, as will bring out that meaning. 
The text clearly teaches that the penitent thief was to enjoy 
conscious blessedness in another world on the very day his body 
died. This leaves no room for the theories of a soul-sleep nor 
of annihilationism. 

Paul also believed and taught the doctrine of immortality 
of the soul. ‘‘Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, 
whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 
(for we walk by faith, not by sight:) we are confident, I say, 
and willing to be absent from the body, and to be present with 
the Lord’’ (2 Cor. 5: 6-8). Here the Apostle represents the soul 
as absent from the body. This separation evidently takes place 
at death. But he says that when he, his soul, is absent from the 
body, it is present with the Lord, which certainly implies that 
it has not ceased to exist, as annihilationists affirm. Therefore 
the souls of the dead have continued uninterrupted existence 
after death. Also the Apostle desired to be absent from the 
body that he might be present with the Lord. It is not con- 
ceivable that such a man as Paul should have desired a soul- 
sleep or unconsciousness rather than the life of ‘‘rejoicing 
always’’ which he lived. Therefore the souls of the righteous 
after death have conscious existence. This text also is fatal to 
the theories of soul-sleeping and annihilationism. 

Again Paul says, ‘‘For me to live is Christ, and to die is 
gain .... For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to 


THE LIFE AFTER DEATH 601 


depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: nevertheless 
to abide in the flesh is more needful for you’’ (Phil. 1: 21, 23, 
24). Existence is always preferable to non-existence. This is 
especially true of a joyful existence. In this same epistle the 
Apostle says, ‘‘I rejoice’’; and again and again he exhorted the 
Philippians to rejoice. It has been termed the ‘‘rejoicing epis- 
tle.’? Life was no burden to Paul, but he did desire to be with 
his Lord rather than ‘‘to abide in the flesh.’’ To be with the 
Lord, however, does not mean annihilation, but existence, and 
that existence with Christ to be preferable to Paul’s earthly life 
must necessarily have been conscious existence. Here again is 
the divine testimony against the theory of soul-sleeping and 
annihilation. 

Other texts might be cited from both the Old and New Testa- 
ments. That the doctrine of immortality of the soul is taught 
in the Old Testament is shown by the first text we cited on the 
subject, in which Jesus appeals to the Old Testament in con- 
futing the Sadducees. The ancient men of faith ‘‘confessed 
that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth’’ (Heb. 
11:13; Gen. 47:9). It is unreasonable to suppose the Hebrews, 
whose first business was religion, who were God’s chosen people, 
the bearers of true religion, and who were possessed of the 
divine revelation, should have been without the doctrine of im- 
mortality, while all other nations devoid of these advantages 
without exception held the doctrine. When Jesus came, the 
worldly sect of the Sadducees were the only ones among the Jews 
who denied the doctrine. The Pharisees and Essenes strongly 
affirmed it. Doubtless, however, Jesus “‘brought life and im- 
mortality to light’’ in the sense that he set the doctrine in a 
clearer light than was true of it before his coming. 

3. Theory of Conditional Immortality —This theory is entirely 
distinct from that of annihilation of the entire man with the 
dissolution of the body as held by materialists and from the 
theory that the soul continues to exist after death, but is in a 
state of unconscious slumber until the resurrection of the body. 
The positive proofs of the continued conscious existence of the 
soul after death sufficiently refute these theories. The theory 
of conditional immortality affirms that only the souls of Chris- 
tians are immortal and that the unconverted die utterly with 
the death of their bodies. It is said that immortality is lost 


602 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


through sin and recovered only by faith in Christ. According 
to this theory the sinner absolutely ceases to exist at death, as 
is held by the materialistic theory of annihilation. Those who 
hold conditional immortality usually profess to hold it on Bibli- 
eal grounds and in order to allow for a general judgment they 
affirm that the wicked will be brought again into being to be 
judged and again annihilated. 

This theory is held as a result of a misapprehension of the 
sense of certain texts of Seripture which represent the sinner 
as spiritually dead and the righteous as having spiritual or 
eternal life. The theory assumes that life always means merely 
existence and that death means always a cessation of existence. 
Examples of the texts used to support this theory are the fol- 
lowing: ‘‘That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, 
but have eternal life’’ (John 3:15). ‘‘He that believeth on the 
Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall 
not see life’’ (John 3:36). ‘‘My sheep hear my voice, and I 
know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal 
life’’ (John 10: 27, 28). ‘‘The gift of God is eternal life through 
Jesus Christ our Lord’’ (Rom. 6:23). ‘‘God hath given to us 
eternal life, and this life is in his Son’”’ (1 John 5:11). 

For a proper interpretation of these and other texts used to 
support the theory of conditional immortality it is important 
first to determine the sense of the terms ‘‘eternal life,’’ ‘‘ever- 
lasting life,’’ and ‘‘death.’’ If the two former expressions — 
always meant endless existence merely, and the latter merely 
cessation of existence, then they would furnish support for the 
theory. But they include more than these, as is evident from 
both the Seriptures and reason. To confound the experience of 
spiritual life with endless existence or spiritual death with 
cessation of the soul’s existence, is to fail to distinguish between 
a condition of the soul and its nature. Natural life is a state in 
which the soul is united with the body. Spiritual life is a state 
in which the soul is united with God, which is its normal sphere 
and necessary to its happiness. If one continues in holiness, 
that happy condition is endless. Natural death consists in the 
separation of the soul and body. Spiritual death is the separa- 
tion of the soul from God. 

That this is true is evident from Rom. 7:9, where Paul says, 
‘*Sin revived and I died.’’ The consequences of sin were certain- 


THE LIFE AFTER DEATH 603 


ly not physical death, as Paul’s body did not die. He died 
spiritually, but his soul, or spirit, did not cease to exist nor to 
be conscious. The spirits of all sinners in this life are as truly 
conscious ag are those of the righteous, and are equal in their 
natural powers to those of the righteous. They retain their 
moral and religious natures. This is evident from the function- 
ing of their consciences in a measure and their sense of obligation 
to love and serve God. But the sinner is spiritually dead in 
that his sins have separated him from God and he is therefore 
out of his normal sphere. As spiritual death is separation from 
God, so spiritual life is union with God. Though eternal life in- 
eludes endless existence, yet the primary sense of it is union 
with God. 

That immortality is not conditional on one’s being righteous 
is evident from Jesus’ teaching that the souls of both the right- 
eous and wicked continue in conscious existence after death, as is 
clear in the case of the rich man and Lazarus. Also the wicked 
are punished without end after the Judgment. That this is not 
annihilation will be shown later. The Bible furnishes no ground 
for the idea that when the child reaches the age of moral responsi- 
bility and sins his soul ceases to exist; yet this must be true if 
spiritual death is what this theory assumes it to be. The theory 
is, not only unscriptural, but also unreasonable. Reason alone 
furnishes ample proof that the sinner, who is in the state of 
spiritual death, has a living soul with all the natural powers 
belonging to it. 

II. The Intermediate State 

The fact of the continued existence of the soul after death 
and the truth of the resurrection of the body and the reuniting 
of the soul with it imply an intermediate state. Between the 
close of the present life and the beginning of the final state the 
spirit is in a condition different from that of this life or that 
beyond the resurrection. Though it has conscious existence it 
is disembodied. Whether it is blessed or punished and regardless 
of where these disembodied souls abide, the fact of an inter- 
mediate state is certain. 

1. Question of an Intermediate Place —An intermediate state, 
or condition of the dead, does not necessarily imply an inter- 
mediate place between earth and the places of final destiny. On 
the question of an intermediate place two main views are held 


604 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


among Christians. One view is that at death the disembodied 
souls of the righteous and wicked go directly to the places of 
everlasting blessedness and of torment respectively. The other 
view is that they do not go at once to the places of final destiny, 
heaven and hell (ye-evva [gehenna]), but await the day of 
judgment in an intermediate place called Hades, one part of 
which is designated Paradise or Abraham’s bosom and is a place 
of happiness for the righteous; the other part being called hell, 
or lower Hades, and sometimes Tartarus, and is a place of 
punishment. The question of an intermediate place of itself 
has little practical value for Christian thought, but is chiefly of 
speculative interest. However, men’s natural interest in the 
place of their future abode has ted them to hold radically dif- 
ferent views. With the exception of the Church of England, 
the leading Protestant bodies disallow the theory of an inter- 
mediate place. 

2. Not a State of Purgatory—The intermediate state is not 
one of purgatorial suffering for sin. The Romish doctrine of 
purgatory assumes that when members of the Roman Catholic 
Church who are not perfect, but only guilty of venial sins, die, 
their souls pass into a place called purgatory, where they suffer 
for the purpose of expiation and also for purification from the 
defilement of those sins. According to the traditional doctrine, 
this suffering is from literal fire and is in intensity and duration 
proportionate to one’s sinfulness. When one has suffered suf- 
ficiently for this expiation and purging he passes on to heaven. 
He may remain in purgatory for a few hours or for thousands 
of years. In consistency with the Romish principle of the power 
of the keys it is assumed that the priest has power to remit the 
penalty for sins and release souls from purgatory. It is affirmed 
that the sufferings of purgatory may be alleviated or their 
duration shortened by the prayers of the saints and especially 
by the sacrifice of the mass. 

The doctrine of purgatory is in strict harmony with other 
Romish principles. According to these, the atonement of Christ 
is efficacious in saving from eternal death only. For all one’s 
postbaptismal sins satisfaction must be made by the sinner by 
good works and penance, and one may enter heaven only when 
such satisfaction is made. If it is not accomplished in this life 
it must be effected after death. This is the ground for the 


THE LIFE AFTER DEATH 605 


doctrine of purgatory. But the eucharist is held to be a sacri- 
ficing of Christ anew for sin by way of atonement as was his 
death on the cross. This is assumed to be efficacious for the 
pardon of sins committed after baptism, and to secure the for- 
giveness of those for whom the priest offers it. On this ground it 
is said that the priest has power to deliver souls from the suffer- 
ings of purgatory. 

Romanists do not usually attempt to support the doctrine of 
purgatory on Scriptural grounds, but rather on the authority 
of the church and especially the views expressed by some of the 
Church Fathers concerning purification by fire, and expiation 
by sufferings after death. To whatever extent these may have 
held such views they evidently did not receive them from the 
Scriptures, but probably from the Grecian philosophers, especial- 
ly Plato, who boldly advocated the idea of purification by fire. 
The Romish doctrine is objectionable, not only because it fails 
of Seriptural support, but especially because it contradicts the 
Bible. It denies that the atonement of Christ is sufficient to 
save from all sin, and that salvation is only by the grace of God 
through Christ. Such denial is clearly contrary to Scripture. 
We are not saved by our own sufferings, for Christ suffered in 
our stead. The whole system of doctrine which leads up to, 
and provides the ground for, the doctrine of purgatory is wrong. 
The souls of dead believers spend no part of the intermediate 
period in purgatorial suffering for sin. 

3. Not a State of Probation—That disembodied souls are not 
in a state of probation between death and the judgment is a clear 
imphecation of the Scriptures. If they were given opportunity 
for salvation after death, then those texts are meaningless which 
urge the importance of our being saved now and which warn of 
awful doom if the present offer of merey is not accepted. The 
Seriptures are replete with warnings against such neglect. 
‘How shall we escape, if we neglect. so great salvation?’’ (Heb. 
2:1-3). ‘‘He that believeth not shall be damned’’ (Mark 16: 
16). ‘*‘Whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but 
have everlasting life’’ (John 3:16). ‘‘He that believeth on him 
is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned al- 
ready’’ (v. 18). ‘‘He that believeth not the Son shall not see 
life’? (v. 86). ‘‘For we must all appear before the judgment 
seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in 


606 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or 
bad’’ (2 Cor. 5:10). ‘‘For as many as have sinned without law 
shall also perish without law’’ (Rom. 2:12). 

These and many other texts state or imply that repentance, 
faith, and obedience in this life are the ground for future re- 
ward or punishment. We are represented as the subjects of 
reward or punishment only for our deeds in this life. If our 
probation continued throughout the intermediate state, then the 
deeds of that state being much more numerous for the large 
majority of the race, and therefore for them far more important, 
ought rather to be made the principal ground for our final re- 
tribution than the deeds of this life. But the Scriptures are ab- 
solutely silent about a probation after death. This silence in such 
a connection is of itself ground for saying there is no such op- 
portunity of salvation hereafter. In Jesus’ discourse concern- 
ing the rich man and Lazarus, he represents the good and the 
wicked as separated by an impassable gulf. No hint is given 
of the possibility of its ever being passed over. 

One text especially has been depended upon as implying a 
probation after death. ‘‘For Christ also hath once suffered 
for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, 
being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by 
which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 
which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering 
of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a prepar- 
ing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water’’ 
(1 Pet. 3: 18-20). This text is assumed by some to teach that 
Jesus’ disembodied spirit went to hades while his body lay in 
the tomb, that he preached the gospel in hades in order that souls 
there who had been impenitent during their earthly life might 
be afforded an opportunity to be saved, and that therefore all 
those who die in sin will be given an opportunity to be saved 
after death. This is all gratuitous assumption. Before this text 
can properly be understood to teach a second probation it must 
be shown: (1) that Christ preached to these spirits after they 
were disembodied rather than during their earthly life; (2) that 
the ‘‘prison’’ is hades; (3) that the preaching consisted in an 
offer of pardon; (4) that he offered salvation to any other than 
to these antediluvians, specifically mentioned; and (5) that if 
he did he will therefore give a like opportunity of salvation to 


THE LIFE AFTER DEATH 607 


all who die impenitent. Evidently this text is no proof that the 
intermediate state is a probationary condition. 

The true meaning of this text must be admitted to be obscure. 
We may be certain it does not support a second probation, but 
probably the true interpretation is too uncertain to admit of 
dogmatism. Two principal views are held concerning it. Ac- 
cording to one view the latter part of verse eighteen should read, 
‘‘quickened in the spirit.’’ Then it was Jesus’ personal dis- 
embodied spirit which went to hades and there proclaimed the 
fact of his atonement for sin to the unbelieving antediluvians 
who died in rejection of God’s message. As held by many this 
view does not imply that another chance of salvation was offered 
to those to whom the preaching of Jesus wag directed, nor that 
such preaching is heard by all men. This interpretation is con- 
fronted by various difficulties. (1) Because a second probation 
is inadmissible, this proclaiming of the accomplishment of his 
atonement by Jesus has no apparent purpose, but is a useless 
proclaiming. (2) This interpretation has no support in any other 
place in the Scriptures, but is rather contradictory to their 
general tenor. (3) Jesus did not go to the place of wicked spirits 
when he died, but to paradise or heaven. 

The other view, which seems to avoid these difficulties and is 
more acceptable to many, is that either by the Holy Spirit, 
if the rendering of the common version be followed, or by his own 
personal spirit, the Logos, according to the Revised Version, 
Christ preached to the antediluvians through Noah while the 
ark was being constructed. The preaching was done before they 
died, but they were dead when Peter wrote of it (1 Pet. 4:6). 
Their being in prison may be understood as meaning either that 
they were imprisoned in Hades when Peter wrote or that they 
were bound by sin, in the prison of sin, when the preaching 
was done. Such an interpretation has been ably advocated by 
Dr. Adam Clarke in his Commentary (unrevised edition). It 
seems to meet with fewer difficulties than the interpretation first 
given. It does not contradict any other statement of the Bible. 


CHAPTER II 
MILLENARIANISM 


The term ‘‘millennium’’ is used in theology to designate a 
supposed future period of universal righteousness during which 
Christ will reign on the earth. In duration this period is sup- 
posed to be one thousand years, on the ground of Rev. 20:1-6, 
and therefore the theory is called millenarianism, from the 
Latin, or chiliasm, from the Greek, both of which have reference 
to one thousand. 


I. Two Theories Distinguished 


Two opposing theories are prevalent concerning the millen- 
nium—postmillenial and premillenial. They are so designated 
in relation to the second coming of Christ. The first holds that 
his advent will be postmillenial, or after the millennium; the 
other supposes his coming will be premillenial, or will precede 
the millennium. According to the first view, the converting 
of the world is the cause of, or at least it prepares the way for, 
the advent of Christ; and according to the other view, the coming 
of Christ is the cause of the conversion of the world. 

1. Postmillenarianism.—Postmillenarians hold that the king- 
dom of Christ was established at his first advent, that through 
existing agencies—especially the preaching of the gospel and the 
operation of the Holy Spirit—world-wide righteousness will be 
effected. This condition will continue for a long period, but its 
duration is not necessarily an exact thousand years, nor do its 
advocates all pretend to hold the theory on the ground of the 
twentieth chapter of Revelation. During this period Satan is 
supposed to be restrained, but at its close he will be loosed for 
a short period, after which Christ will come to raise the dead, 
judge the world, and destroy the earth. 

2. Premillenarianism.—Premillenarians hold that the kingdom 
of Christ does not yet exist, but that it will be established at 
his second advent. They affirm that present agencies will fail 
to convert the world, and that wickedness will increase until 
Christ comes, when it will be supernaturally suppressed. Great 
diversity of views exists among advocates of the premillennial 
coming of Christ as to events and the order of their occurrence. 


Only by consulting a particular teacher of the theory may 
608 


MILLENARTANISM 609 


that teacher’s peculiar views be known, but the theory as most 
commonly held by evangelical Christians is generally as follows. 
The present preaching of the gospel will not accomplish the con- 
version of the world, but is intended only as a witness to make 
the nations subject to judgment and to gather out the elect. 
Wickedness will continue to increase until the advent of Christ, 
which is declared to be very near at hand. Christ will come 
secretly and raise the righteous dead and these with the righteous 
who are alive will be caught up somewhere in the air, where 
they will be with Christ for a period, the length of which is 
affirmed by some to be seven years. During the time the right- 
eous are in the air the living wicked on earth will endure a 
period of great tribulation under the rule of a personal anti- 
christ. After this coming of Christ already described, which is 
said to be for his saints and is called ‘‘the rapture,’’ it is held 
that he will come with his saints, which coming is called ‘‘the 
revelation.’’ Then he will bind Satan and by supernatural 
manifestations of power and glory convert Israel and the major- 
ity of the wicked. The Jews will be gathered to Palestine, 
where Christ will establish his throne and rule over all the world 
with special advantage to the Jews. At the end of the millen- 
nium Satan will be loosed for a short time, after which will 
occur a second resurrection, that of the wicked dead, who will 
then be judged. Lastly the earth will be burned up. 

The foregoing is believed to be a fair representation in gen- 
eral of the theory as held by its leading modern advocates such 
as Seiss, Blackstone, Campbell Morgan, and Gray, or even C. T. 
Russell with a few exceptions. The postmillenarian view is here 
considered less objectionable than the other theory. As held by 
many, postmillenarianism includes nothing more than an exag- 
gerated idea of what we may properly expect the present preach- 
ing of the gospel to accomplish. Therefore it is of little if any 
practical concern to us. But this can not be said of the pre- 
millennial theory. This theory represents a distinct school of 
Seripture interpretation which is highly revolutionary in nature. 
It affects some of the most important points in Christian doc- 
trine. It is subversive of the whole aim and mission of the 
ehurch. Its advocates become so obsessed with it that they be- 
lieve they find reference to it on almost every page of the Bible. 
These are reasons enough for the present consideration of pre- 


610 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


millenarianism, to which this chapter is principally devoted. 
The following criticism of this theory is to be understood as 
directed wholly against its principles and not against its advo- 
cates, many of whom are doubtless earnest and devout Chris- 
tians. 

II. History of Millenarianism 

1. The Idea Among the Jews.——Christians originally borrowed 
the idea of a millennium from the Jews, but in its widest sense 
the idea was not original with the Jews. Various heathen na- 
tions—Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome—had an idea 
of a future golden age of the world when evil would be sup- 
pressed. Zoroastrianism expected a thousand-year period to fol- 
low the downfall of hostile powers, which period was connected 
with a resurrection of the dead. The later Jewish conception 
of such a period would naturally be colored by these views of 
a similar period held by the nations about them. The Jewish 
conception, however, was based principally upon the Messianic 
predictions of the Old Testament. There the Messiah was repre- 
sented as executing Judgment upon the enemies of Israel, as 
reestablishing the throne of David at Jerusalem in great splen- 
dor, as exalting Israel, and as ruling over the Gentiles. Then 
the wilderness would blossom as the rose, the soil would be very 
fertile and nature especially prolific, while wild beasts would 
become docile, and wars would cease among men. 

Because of a literal interpretation of these prophecies, the 
Jews generally expected the Messiah to establish an earthly 
kingdom. Such was the common expectation of the Jews of the 
time of Christ. Even the apostles held such a view only a short 
time prior to Jesus’ ascension, in spite of the fact that he had 
taught again and again that the kingdom is not of this world. 
The rabbinical writers held some very exaggerated notions of the 
material benefits of the reign of the Messiah. The earth was to 
yield many thousandfold, and grain, fruit, and flesh were to be 
provided in immeasurable abundance. 

But Jesus disappointed those carnal hopes. He neither es- 
tablished nor promised to establish such an earthly kingdom. 
In the words of the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Relig- 
ious Knowledge, ‘‘The teaching of Christ is not millenarian.”’ 
As much may be truly said of the teachings of the epistles of the 


MILLENARIANISM 611 


New Testament. The apostles taught a present spiritual king- 
dom of Christ. 

2. Millenarianism in the Early Church.—Though the teaching 
of Jesus and of the apostles was not millenarian, yet the theory 
found much support among Christians in the second century 
and early part of the third. Of the early church fathers it was 
held by Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Ireneus, and Tertul- 
lian. The millennial views of these fathers were identical with 
those held by the Jews, except that they were given a Christian 
setting. It is not difficult to understand how mullenarianism 
found entrance to Christian thought. The first Christians were 
Jews. They had been accustomed to anticipations of millennial 
glories in connection with the Messiah’s reign. When they ac- 
cepted Jesus as that Messiah and yet found their dreamg un- 
realized, they very naturally transferred those millennial glories 
in their thinking from the first to the second advent of Christ. 
They found the New Testament teachings concerning Christ’s 
coming again in glory and the resurrection of the dead not 
difficult to harmonize with their millennial hopes. 

Papias, whose views were shared by Ireneus, assumed there 
would be wonderful material benefits in the millennial age. 
Ireneus wrote, ‘‘The days will come in which the vines shall 
grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch 
ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, 
and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on 
every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape 
when pressed will give five and twenty metretes of wine’’ (about 
two hundred and twenty-five gallons from each grape). 

But though some eminent fathers held millenarianism, it 
was never generally accepted. Montanism, which gave much 
prominence to millenarianism, was condemned by different 
synods of Asia Minor as heresy about 160 A. D. Dr. C. A. 
Briggs says of chiliasm, “‘The mass of writers as well as 
churches, speaking through their local assemblies, bishops, and 
patriarchs either show an entirely different conception of escha- 
tology, or else, as in the great churches of Rome, Alexandria, 
and Asia Minor, they condemned the heresy; so that before the 
First Ecumenical Council of Nice, chiliasm had been suppressed 
in all parts of the Christian Chureh.’’ That it was not gen- 
erally accepted from an early date is evident from the fact that 


612 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the four greatest early church symbols—the Apostles’ creed, 
the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, and the Athanasian—all ex- 
clude it by affirming a single resurrection of the dead, including 
both the righteous and the wicked. Origen rejected millenarian- 
ism and Augustine in identifying the kingdom of God with the 
church excluded it. From his time it ceased to be held almost 
entirely for many centuries. 

3. Modern Premillenarianism.—Premillenarianism came into 
temporary prominence in the year 1000 A. D. due to the theory 
held by some that that date ended the one thousand years of 
Revelation 20. Also belief in it accompanied the fanaticism of 
the Anabaptists after the Reformation. Several other outbreaks 
of premillennial teaching might be cited during the eighteenth 
and nineteenth centuries, but it has not been the common belief 
among Christians. The creeds of the leading denominations 
either exclude it or give it no support. Another revival of 
millenarianism has come in recent years. In the ranks of its 
advocates are a few eminent religious leaders. The theory is 
being zealously propagated in ‘‘prophetic conferences,’’ by 
elaborate charts purporting to show the plan of the ages, by 
books, and by periodicals. Though the details of the theory are 
held differently by its different supporters, yet the modern 
theory is well represented by W. E. Blackstone in his book 
‘‘Jesus is Coming.’’ Evidently this work is representative, 
from the endorsements of it by more than a dozen eminent pre- 
millennialists. But this book is not caleulated to appeal to the 
careful thinker and interpreter of the Scriptures. Dr. James H. 
Snowden has described it as being the most unscholarly work he 
had seen on the subject. Yet some truly able Christian scholars 
are supporters of premillenarianism. However, the large major- 
ity of Biblical scholars do not support it. It is not supposed that 
the question is to be determined by the ‘‘ weight of scholarship,’’ 
but) what is here said is merely to offset the claim that all great 
Biblical scholars are premillennialists. Neither is it true that all 
who reject premillenarianism hold the views of the destructive 
higher critics. Before the rise of the modern school of criticism 
Christians generally rejected premillenarianism. 


III. The Kingdom of Christ 


The expression ‘‘kingdom of Christ’’ is identical in mean- 


MILLENARIANISM 613 


ing with ‘“‘kingdom of God’’ and ‘‘kingdom of heaven.’’ As it 
is used in the New Testament it means the spiritual kingdom of 
God, as distinguished from God’s rule over the universe or the 
kingdom of literal Israel. The kingdom of God, as to its sub- 
jects, is identical with the church. It is the rule of God in the 
hearts of his people. The question of the kingdom of Christ, 
especially the nature and time of the establishment of the king- 
dom, is determinative of the Scripturalness of premillenarian- 
ism. That theory rests on the assumption that the kingdom is 
an earthly, material kingdom, and that its establishment ig yet 
future and to take place at the second advent. If it can be 
shown that the kingdom of God is a spiritual, not a literal, 
kingdom, and that it is already in existence, having been estab- 
lished at the first coming of Christ, then the theory of pre- 
millenarianism is disproved, not only in these two particulars, 
but also in all its other aspects, which have these for their basis. 

1. Nature of Christ’s Kingdom.—J es us said to Pilate, ‘‘My 
kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this 
world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be de- 
livered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence’’ 
(John 18:36). This is a clear statement as to what the kingdom 
of Christ is not. It is not a political and materialistic kingdom 
with certain geographical territory and which needs to be up- 
held by the power of human arms and war. Jesus acknowledges 
by using the present tense ‘‘is’’ that he has a kingdom, but it is 
a heavenly, spiritual kingdom. 

The Jews expected the Messiah to set up a material, earthly 
kingdom, It was with that in mind that the Pharisees came to 
inquire of Jesus. ‘‘And being asked by the Pharisees, when the 
kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and said, The king- 
dom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, 
Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you’’ 
(Luke 17: 20, 21, A. S. V.). Jesus here clearly teaches that his 
kingdom is not of such a nature that it may be seen outwardly, 
but is spiritual in its nature. It already existed, as is evident 
from his use of the present tense, but it is within men’s hearts 
and does not consist in material things. Here Jesus specifically 
sought to correct the misconception of these inquirers that the 
Messianic kingdom was a literal one. How strange that men 
today contradict his plain statement by affirming that his king- 


614 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


dom is materialistic in its nature! Paul also taught likewise 
against the idea of a material kingdom. ‘‘The kingdom is not 
meat and drink; but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy 
Ghost’’ (Rom. 14:17). 

The kingdom which Christ preached was of such a nature 
that it instead of material benefits might be sought in the age 
when he lived (Matt. 6:33). Its nature was such that men 
might voluntarily enter it at that time. ‘‘Hvery man presseth 
into it’’ (Luke 16:16). Admission to it was by means of the 
new birth. ‘‘Except a man‘be born of water and of the Spirit, 
he can not enter into the kingdom’’ (John 3:5). Evidently a 
spiritual birth can not induct one into a literal kingdom. Dur- 
ing Jesus’ day men did enter the kingdom. ‘‘Woe unto you, 
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom 
of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither 
suffer ye them that are entering to go in’’ (Matt. 23:13). These 
words would be meaningless if applied to a future earthly king- 
dom. The teachings of the parables of Jesus to which the king- 
dom of heaven is likened are incongruous with the idea of an 
earthly kingdom. 

2. Predictions of the Time of Its Establishment—The time of 
establishment of the kingdom is clearly predicted in the second 
chapter of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar had a dream in which he 
saw a great image with a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, 
belly and thighs of brass, and legs of iron, and feet part of iron 
and part of clay. A stone ‘‘eut out of the mountains without 
hands’’ struck the image on the feet and broke, not only them, 
but the entire image to pieces. In interpreting the dream Daniel 
said to Nebuchadnezzar, ‘‘Thou, O king, ... art this head of 
gold’’ (Dan. 2:37). But the context shows clearly that not 
merely Nebuchadnezzar himself was the head of gold, but rather 
the Chaldean Empire, of which he was the first ruler. ‘‘And 
after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and an- 
other third kingdom, of brass, which shall bear rule over all the 
earth’’ (v. 39). The two world empires immediately following 
the Chaldean, were the Medo-Persian, and the Grecian. ‘‘ And 
the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron’’ (v. 40). The fourth 
universal empire counting from the Chaldean was the Roman, 
which is well described as being strong as iron. 

Daniel explained the breaking of the image by the stone to sig- 


MILLENARIANISM 615 


nify that, ‘‘In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set 
up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom 
shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and 
consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever’’ (v. 44). 
But four kingdoms are mentioned in this chapter, the last of 
which was the Roman. Not later than the time of the Roman Em- 
pire was the kingdom of God to be set up. But the Roman Em- 
pire has long since passed away. Therefore, the kingdom of God 
has evidently already been established. 

But those who expect the establishment of the divine kingdom 
in the future, especially premillenarians, assume that ‘‘these 
kings’’ (v. 44) are the ten minor kingdoms which grew out of the 
Roman Empire, that these are still in existence, and that there- 
fore the divine kingdom has not yet been established. They 
suppose the toes of the image represent these minor kingdoms 
as do the ten horns of the fourth beast described in Daniel 7. 
But this ig not so stated. Moreover, the claim that these toes 
were intended to represent ten kingdoms is wholly gratuitous. 
In the expression ‘‘these kings’’ (v. 44) ‘‘these’’ must have for 
its antecedent the kings already mentioned. No ten minor 
kingdoms are mentioned; therefore it must refer to those which 
are mentioned. As already shown, it clearly predicts the setting 
up of the kingdom of God in the days of the Roman Empire. 

Also it was not only the feet that were broken to pieces by 
the little stone, but ‘‘then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the 
silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like 
the chaff of the summer threshing-floors’’ (Dan. 2:35). But 
how could those former kingdoms be destroyed by the kingdom 
of God in the days of the feet or the latter part of the Roman 
Empire? Certainly, as political powers they had long since 
eeased to be. Also the destruction of civil governments is not 
the divine purpose, for God has ordained them. But false re- 
ligion is a proper subject of Scripture prophecy, and the king- 
dom of God in its very nature is designed to destroy them. 
Those ancient world empires were more than political powers. 
They were upholders of heathen religions. While the political 
power of those empires preceding the Roman had vanished, the 
false religion they supported was all included in the Roman 
Empire. Therefore when the little stone destroyed the pagan- 


616 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


ism of Rome the same false religion of the preceding govern- 
ments was overthrown. 

In Isa. 9:6, 7 is a prediction of the coming of Christ. A 
child was to be born. This is clearly a prediction of the first 
coming of Christ. He was to be the ‘‘Prince of peace’’ and to 
rule on the ‘‘throne of David.’’ As David ruled over Israel, 
God’s people anciently, so does Christ rule over Christians, who 
are God’s people now. There is no hint in this prediction that 
the rule of Christ is to take place at any other time than at the 
first advent when the child was born. It is a prediction con- 
cerning the first advent. Luke 1:32, 33 concerning Christ sit- 
ting on David’s throne is to be similarly understood. 

3. Christ’s Kingdom Established at His First Advent—In the 
beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist and of Jesus 
they proclaimed ‘‘the kingdom of heaven is at hand’’ (Matt. 
3:2; Mark 1:14, 15). It had been promised from the time of 
Isaiah seven hundred years before. When Jesus came it ceased 
to be in the future and had arrived—it was ‘‘at hand.’’ If 
after only seven hundred years of waiting it could be said to 
be at hand, that proclamation could not possibly mean it would 
not be established for yet nineteen hundred years or more. If 
the words ‘‘the kingdom of heaven is at hand’’ do not mean it 
was established at the first advent of Christ, then the words are 
misleading. 

Jesus often spoke of the kingdom as then existing. ‘‘From 
the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven 
suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force’’ (Matt. 11: 
12). ‘‘The law and the prophets were until John: since 
that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man 
presseth into it’’ (Luke 16:16). Both of these verses clearly 
imply the existence of the kingdom. That men were in the 
kingdom implies its existence. The foregoing and other texts 
state some were in it. ‘“‘Who... hath translated us into the 
kingdom of his dear Son’’ (Col. 1:13). ‘‘I John, who also am 
your brother ...in the kingdom... of Jesus Christ’’ (Rev. 
1:9). The implication is clear in these verses that the time of 
the setting up of the kingdom is not in the future. 

The kingdom of God came in the days of the apostles. When 
speaking to them Jesus said, ‘‘There be some of them that stand 
here, which shall not taste death, till they have seen the king- 


MILLENARIANISM 617 


dom of God come with power’’ (Mark 9:1). Probably this 
refers to his manifestation in his majesty at the transfiguration, 
which is described immediately following. But whenever it was 
fulfilled, the declaration is clear that the kingdom of God was 
to be manifested during the first century, while the apostles 
yet lived. Jesus affirmed before Pilate that he was then a king 
and then had a kingdom, but it was not an earthly one. All of 
these texts agree exactly with the prophecies discussed which 
teach the divine kingdom was set up at the first advent and dur- 
ing the time of the Roman Empire. Because it is already set 
up and is a spiritual kingdom, the theory that it is an earthly, 
material kingdom to be established in the future is necessarily 
false and unscriptural. 


IV. Hermeneutic Principles 

Correct understanding of the teaching of the Scriptures is 
dependent upon the observance of sound principles in their in- 
terpretation. Interpretation is as necessary to the understand- 
ing of the Scriptures as of any other book. While it is true 
‘‘the meaning of Scripture is Scripture,’’ it is also true, as 
Peter said, that in the Bible are ‘‘some things hard to be under- 
stood.’’ The business of the preacher is to interpret, or rightly 
divide the Word of God (2 Tim. 2:15). Philip interpreted to 
the Ethiopian eunuch the prophecy of Isaiah which alone the 
eunuch was unable to understand. The teaching of Jesus and 
of the apostles is largely interpretation of the Old Testament. 
No systematic discussion of Biblical hermeneutics is here at- 
tempted, but only of such principles as are vital to our present 
subject. 

1. Literal or Figurative Interpretation—The Scriptures, like 
most other Oriental literature, contain much of figurative and 
symbolic language. The speech and literature of the modern 
Western world makes use of figures and symbols to some extent, 
but the Jews thought and taught much in word pictures. There- 
fore their literature, both inspired and uninspired, abounds in 
that which appeals to the eye and the imagination. Jesus spoke 
often in parables. Whatever difficulties for interpretation may 
attend the figurative mode of expression of thought, it evidently 
has much advantage in making truth vivid and impressive. 

Most interpreters of the Bible have recognized both the 


618 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


literal and figurative elements in it. Even Origen recognized 
this plain sense of Scripture, but in conformity with his theory 
of its multiple meaning he also interpreted all Seripture alle- 
gorically. This ‘‘spiritualizing’’ has been generally rejected as 
dangerous and unreasonable, and is not to be confused with the 
recognition of symbols where they exist. But premillenarians 
hold a principle of literal interpretation which is an extreme 
opposite to that of the spiritualizing of Origen. They especial- 
ly interpret literally those texts relating to Christ’s kingdom 
and Israel’s glory. They profess to be very much shocked be- 
eause others do not interpret their favorite texts likewise. They 
affirm that they are giving superior honor to the Word of God 
by interpreting it literally at these points. They sometimes go 
so far as to charge all who disapprove of their extreme literal- 
izing with holding the views of the destructive higher critics. 
But a spiritual truth is as real as a literal one. God is a pure 
spirit, incorporeal, yet his existence is as real as is that of a 
man who has a material body. Likewise a truth may be as truly 
expressed figuratively as literally. 

Examples of spiritual interpretation abound in the Bible it- 
self. Malachi closed his prophecy with a promise that God would 
send Elijah to reform Israel before the Messiah should come. 
It must have shocked the literalists of Jesus’ day when Christ 
said of John the Baptist, ‘‘If ye will receive it, this is Elias, 
which was for to come’’ (Matt. 11:14). Paul recognized a spir- 
itual Israel (Gal. 3:29; Rom. 2: 28, 29) also spiritual children 
of Abraham (Rom. 4:11, 16) and interprets Old Testament 
texts as referring to them. Elaborate symbols are interpreted 
in detail in the Book of Daniel, where beasts symbolize empires 
and horns kings and kingdoms. The Book of Revelation is a 
book of symbols; candlesticks are churches (Rev. 1:20), and 
heads and horns represent kingdoms (Rev. 17:10, 12). But the 
premillennial teacher affirms that we may properly interpret 
symbolically only in those instances where inspiration has so 
interpreted or indicated the existence of symbols. We deny the 
validity of any such principle for interpreting Scripture. Un- 
inspired speech and literature does not always stop to indicate 
that figures and symbols are being used when they are employed ; 
neither does the Bible. Even premillennialists will, for the 
most part, forsake this principle when confronted with certain 


MILLENARIANISM 619 


texts. For example, Jesus said of the communion bread at the 
last supper, ‘‘This is my body’’ (Matt. 26:26). No literal in- 
terpretation nor hint that they are to be literally understood is 
given of these words in the Bible. According to the principle 
which premillenarians profess to observe, it inevitably leads to 
transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Catholics and Luther- 
ans improperly so interpret these words, and profess to be great- 
ly seandalized by a spiritual interpretation of them, much as do 
premillenarians when their favorite texts are interpreted figura- 
tively. Yet these same premillenarians usually depart from their 
principle of literal interpretation when they come to interpret 
the words, ‘‘This is my body.’’ Doubtless the Bible does not 
always literally ‘‘mean what it says.’’ It rather means what it 
signifies. 

A chapter on ‘‘Literal Interpretation’’ is given by W. H. 
Blackstone in his book ‘‘ Jesus Is Coming,’’ in which he gives a 
list of several prophecies of Christ’s first coming which were 
literally fulfilled. He then gives another list of predictions 
which he assumes teach premillenarianism and reasons that be- 
cause the prophecies of the first list were literally fulfilled there- 
fore the prophecies of the second list shall be literally fulfilled. 
But this is the same as to reason that because some parts of 
Seripture are to be understood literally therefore all parts must 
be so interpreted. Such a conclusion would contradict the 
examples of symbols in the Bible already pointed out. Though 
his reasoning is unsound at this point, it is not more so than. at 
many other places. He further attempts to support his theory 
of literal interpretation by quoting a child ag saying, ‘‘If Jesus 
did not mean what he said, why did he not say what he meant.”’ 
Such reasoning is worthy only of a child, but one wonders that 
this writer who is looked to as a leading representative of the 
theory he advocates would resort to it. Jesus and the inspired 
writers did, say what they meant. But they sometimes used 
figures and symbols to express their thoughts more forcefully, 
as do all men at times. Such childish reasoning would deny the 
existence of any figurative language in the Bible, which even 
Blackstone admits exists in some instances. 

2. Historical Interpretation—-Scripture must be interpreted 
in the light of its context, the purpose of the particular writing, 
the viewpoint of its writer, the time when he wrote, and the 


620 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


condition of those to whom he wrote. Each of the inspired 
writers wrote his message for a practical purpose to certain men 
living in his day. To understand any text of Scripture we must 
know its proper historical setting. To interpret the Bible as if 
all parts are on the same level in that they were originally ad- 
dressed to us by writers who had our time and circumstances in 
mind is to go far astray. Particular verses can not properly be 
employed in support of a doctrine except as their context and 
historical setting allow such sense. Minds obsessed with a par- 
ticular doctrine, whether or not it be Scriptural, frequently think 
they find support of it in almost every chapter of the Bible. 
They bring together many texts entirely separate from their con- 
text and thus seek to prove their doctrine by interpreting them 
contrary to their historical setting. Such a method of handling 
Seripture is highly objectionable and misleading. 

But this sort of misinterpretation of Scripture has been com- 
mon among teachers of premillenarianism. Blackstone’s ‘‘ Jesus 
is Coming’’ is especially open to criticism in this respect. He 
finds the Old Testament, especially the prophecies, filled with 
references to Christ’s second coming. We should never think 
of these as possibly having such a sense unless a premillenarian 
had told us; for example, Deut. 33:2 and Hosea 6:3. The 
prophets and Israel were not especially concerned about an event 
so remote as the second advent. A matter of far more immediate 
concern to them was the first advent of Christ. The coming of 
the promised ‘‘seed’’ of Abraham, who would bless the world; 
the advent of the great ‘‘Son of David,’’ who would bring sal- 
vation to men—this was that to which the devout of pre-Christian 
times looked forward. ‘‘The Old Testament prophetic passages,’ 
says Dr. Snowden, ‘‘obviously refer to the first coming of the 
Messiah, the only coming that had yet risen above the horizon of 
the prophets, and it is only by a feat of athletic exegesis that 
these references can be heaved over the first into the second 
ecoming.’’ (The Coming of the Lord, p. 38). Only by literal in- 
terpretation of symbolic texts and by interpreting many texts 
apart from their historical setting can premillenarianism find 
support in many texts. 

V. Revelation 20:1-6 

Premillenarians find the foundation for their doctrine in 

this text. Whatever other texts may be appealed to in support 


MILLENARIANISM 621 


of the doctrine, they must all be interpreted in relation to this 
one. Leading advocates of the theory admit this text is the ul- 
timate support of it. It is the only text that says anything about 
a thousand years’ reign with Christ. If the interpretation of 
this text which is given by premillenarians be the correct one then 
the doctrine is Scriptural, but if this text does not teach the 
doctrine then it is taught nowhere in the Scriptures. 

1. Millenarianism Not Taught.—Rev. 20: 1-6 declares the drag- 
on is bound a thousand years, during which time certain of the 
righteous are said to reign with Christ. On its surface this 
text may appear to teach millenarianism, especially to one who 
already has the idea in his mind. But upon a more careful 
examination it is apparent no such doctrine is contained init. A 
literal interpretation of the text is essential to its furnishing 
support for millenarianism. But it is located in what is gener- 
ally conceded to be the most highly symbolic of all the books of 
the Bible, and this text is itself as highly symbolic as is any in 
that symbolic book. Correct principles of hermeneutics absolute- 
ly forbid a literal interpretation of this text in total disregard 
of its context. The premillenarian interpretation of this is a 
striking example of improper literal interpretation by the teach- 
ers of it. That the text under consideration is not to be literally 
interpreted and that it does not teach the millenarian doctrine 
is held by the large majority of the most devout and careful 
thinking of evangelical writers. Dr. Miley says on this text: 
‘‘This may be said, first, that the passage contains not a word 
respecting any advent of Christ, nor a word respecting his reign- 
ing personally on the earth. Further, it is in a highly figurative 
or symbolical book, and is itself highly symbolical. Consequently 
the construction of the theory of the advent on such ground is 
without the warrant of any principle of doctrinal formation, and 
the more certainly so as there are many explicit texts on the 
subject’’ (Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 443). This is but an 
example of statements by many equally eminent theologians of 
different denominations, including A. H. Strong, Minor Ray- 
mond, H. C. Sheldon, A. A. Hodge, Adam Clarke, and J. H. 
Snowden. 

Not only is literal interpretation of this text a violation of 
sound hermeneutic principles, but its implication of an earthly, 
literal reign of Christ and two physical resurrections is contrary 


622 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


to other plain texts (John 5:28, 29; Dan. 12:2). One plain 
text of Scripture is enough to support a doctrine, but if a text 
is generally admitted to be symbolic and obscure, it should be 
interpreted in accordance with plain texts, not they in accordance 
with it. 

But even if a literal interpretation of the text were permis- 
sible it would still not give the support to the millenarian theory 
it is usually supposed by its advocates to afford. Much of that 
theory is read into the text rather than out of it. Nothing is 
said in the passage under consideration about the second advent 
of Christ. That is assumed to take place at the time of the 
events here described. There is no proof the angel of verse 1 is 
Christ. He always appears in.his own person unsymbolized in 
the Revelation, as in chap. 19:11-16. Again it is assumed that 
the dragon is the literal devil. But in the twelfth chapter he is 
said to have seven heads and ten horns and with his tail to draw 
the third part of the stars of heaven and to cast them to the earth 
(Rev. 12:3, 4). In chap. 17: 10-12 those heads and horns are 
said to be kingdoms. Who can suppose Satan, the archfiend and 
an evil spirit, has these kingdoms for heads and horns, or that 
he has a tail capable of the great feat here described? The 
terms ‘‘serpent,’’ ‘‘devil,’’ and ‘‘Satan’’ are themselves symbols 
of an antiChristian power. 

Again, this text says nothing of a reign on the earth. The 
reign was to be ‘‘with Christ,’’ and Christ is in heaven. Still 
further, there are no resurrected bodies in this part of the chap- 
ter. They are ‘‘souls’’ of those beheaded who are to reign with 
Christ. Moreover, not all the righteous dead are said to reign 
with him, but only those who were ‘‘beheaded for the witness 
of Jesus, and for the word of God.’’ Finally, in clear contradic- 
tion to the millenarian theory that the first resurrection is of 
the bodies of the righteous dead, the fifth verse declares that the 
lwing again of the rest of the dead after the thousand-year 
period is the °‘ first resurrection.’’ In view of all of these difficul- 
ties, this text, which is supposed to be the foundation of it, cer- 
tainly furnishes no adequate ground for the doctrine. 

2. Exegesis of Revelation 20:1-6.—The text in question is cap- 
able of a symbolic meaning and with the proof that it is properly 
so interpreted the literal interpretation and this text as a support 
of millenarianism are excluded. Space forbids an elaborate dis- 


MILLENARIANISM 623 


cussion of the text with full proof of each statement. For this 
the reader is referred to works dealing particularly with the 
subject (Christ’s Kingdom and Reign, H. M. Riggle; The Rev- 
elation Explained, F. G. Smith)*. The Book of Revelation 
contains six parallel series of prophecies, each of which runs 
through much of the Christian era. Different series of symbols 
were needed to set forth different phases of the development of 
the true religion, as various parables were used by Jesus to repre- 
sent different aspects of the kingdom of heaven. A new series 
begins with chapter 20, as do others with chapters 12 and 17. 
Therefore the events first described in chapter 20 belong near the 
beginning rather than at the end of the Christian era. 


Only one dragon is mentioned in the Revelation. He is first 
introduced in chap. 12:3 as a great red dragon having seven 
heads and ten horns. In every other mention of him, as in 
chap. 20:2, he is called the dragon as being already known. 
We have already seen that he can not be the personal devil. 
His heads and horns, which in chap. 17:10-12 are described 
as being kingdoms, identify him with the pagan Roman Empire, 
with its seven supreme forms of government and the ten minor 
kingdoms growing out of it. This interpretation of the dragon 
of Revelation 12 hag been commonly held by exegetes employing 
the historical method of interpreting the Revelation. The dragon 
was bound in the sense that the religious power of paganism was 
broken by early Christianity. The time he was to remain bound 
is represented as a thousand years, which is symbolic of a long 
period of time. Though men continued to be deceived by other 
false religious powers, yet when the paganism of Rome was 
overthrown it ceased to deceive them. 


During this period in which the pagan power was bound the 
souls of the martyrs reigned with Christ. That reign took place, 
not on earth, but in heaven. These souls are disembodied spirits, 
which are never symbolized in the Revelation. (See Rev. 6: 
9-11.) These disembodied souls of martyrs reigning with Christ 
are symbolized when in their embodied condition in chap. 12:5 
as a man child which the dragon sought to devour and which 
was caught up to God and to his throne. In chap. 12:5 they are 
represented as being born, here as being resurrected (v. 6). 
This first resurrection is conversion. (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:18; 

*Published by Gospel Trumpet Co., Anderson, Ind, 


624 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


John 5:24, 25; 1 John 3:14). Those who have had part in the 
first resurrection are said to be ‘‘blessed and holy’’ (v. 6). 
It is salvation that makes men so. It is called the ‘‘first’’ resur- 
rection in contrast with the resurrection of the body at the last 
day. Those who reigned with Christ during the thousand years 
had, had part in this first resurrection, though they were disem- 
bodied spirits and the bodies of them were in their graves. But 
the first resurrection is continued after the thousand-year period 
(v. 5). This fact entirely excludes the premillenarian theory 
of a first resurrection of the righteous and another one of the 
wicked a thousand years later. During the thousand-year period 
while the pagan power was bound the papacy held sway and 
salvation work was less common than in the early Christian 
centuries. Therefore those who have had part in the first resur- 
rection, or have been regenerated, are represented as two groups, 
one before and one after the thousand years. 

With the rise of modern infidelity and opposition to the Bible 
and Christianity the same dragon power that withstood Chris- 
tianity in the early centuries is again appearing. The thousand- 
year period is in the past rather than in the future. 


VI. Objections to Premillenarianism 


Much ground for objection to premillenarianism is afforded 
by what has already been said. The theory originated among 
earthly-minded Jews, who rejected and crucified Christ because 
he did not come in worldly glory as they had supposed he would 
do. It has been generally rejected by the church during the ages 
and is generally regarded today as unscriptural, especially by 
most great Biblical scholars. Christ’s kingdom was established 
at his first advent; therefore is not to be set up in the future. 
It is described as being spiritual in its nature; therefore can 
not be a literal, earthly one. Neither the teachings of Jesus 
nor any of the epistles contain one word about a millennium. 
Rey. 20: 1-6 has been found not to teach a literal reign of Christ 
on earth as held by millenarians, but is symbolic of events which 
are already past. Still other important objections remain to be 
stated. 

1. No Double Resurrection—Premillenarianism requires and 
holds two literal resurrections, one of the righteous before the 
millennium and another of the wicked at its end. They assume 


MILLENARIANISM 625 


that these are taught in Rev. 20: 1-6, but we have already shown 
that assumption to be erroneous. Blackstone attempts to show 
_(Jesus Is Coming, p. 59) that two resurrections are recognized 
throughout the Bible by the use in the Greek text of &x (ek)— 
from among, or out of—in relation to the resurrection of the 
righteous. He affirms that by the use of this word only in re- 
lation to the resurrection of the righteous, they are represented 
as raised from among the dead ones, implying that some dead 
ones are not raised up at that time. Dr. David Brown in his 
‘‘Second Advent’’ says this distinction ‘‘will not bear an hour’s 
examination of the Greek Testament.’’ Dr. Snowden says, ‘‘The 
expression ‘resurrection of the dead’ (without ek) is not 
only applied expressly to the resurrection of both classes, but 
specifically to that resurrection which is peculiar to believers 
(1 Cor. 15:42), and even to the resurrection of Christ himself 
(Acts 26:23). Not only so, but the same Greek preposition (ek) 
occurs in other passages where no one would think it means 
‘from amongst,’ as in John 6: 26, ‘because ye ate of the loaves,’ 
and Gal. 3:7, ‘they that are of faith.’ In most cases this prep- 
osition is translated simply ‘from’ and has no such meaning 
as this unscholarly premillenarian interpretation seeks to place 
upon it’’ (The Coming of the Lord, p. 176). Any one familiar 
with the common Greek usage of the term in question will readily 
recognize the weakness of the argument based upon it. 

Not only does the theory of a double resurrection fail to find 
support in the use of the Greek term discussed in the foregoing 
paragraph and in Rey. 20: 1-6, but the general teaching of Scrip- 
ture concerning the simultaneous resurrection of both righteous 
and wicked excludes it. ‘‘The hour is coming, in the which all 
that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; 
they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they 
that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation’’ (John 
9:20, 29). At a particular ““hour’’ or.tnme “‘all’’ ‘the dead, 
both good and evil, shall be raised up. ‘‘So man leth down, 
and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, 
nor be raised out of their sleep’’ (Job 14:12). Men are to be 
raised only at the time when the heavens cease to be, according 
to this text. No room is allowed for the resurrection of the 
righteous a thousand years before that time. ‘‘There shall be 
a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust’’ (Acts 


626 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


24:15). But one resurrection is here mentioned; the word is 
in the singular number. Yet that resurrection is to include both 
the just and unjust. In Rev. 20:11-15 is a description of the 
last judgment scene. ‘‘And I saw the dead [not those who 
had been living in resurrected bodies a thousand years], small 
and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and 
another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead 
were judged out of those things which were written in the books, 
according to their works.’’ These verses teach oneness of the 
judgment and also of the resurrection for good and evil. Only 
by a forced interpretation of these four passages can their plain 
teaching of oneness of the resurrection be avoided. 

2. No Restoration of Judaism.—Many things predicted of Ju- 
dah and Jerusalem have never been literally fulfilled. But the 
principle of literal interpretation which is held with so great 
tenacity by premillenarians requires that these shall be literally 
fulfilled. In conformity with the requirements of their logic, 
premillenarians affirm that these predictions will be accomplished 
in a restored Judaism, that the Jews shall return to Palestine, 
Jerusalem shall be restored to them, Christ shall rule over the 
Jews there, the temple shall be rebuilt, and all its system of cer- 
emonies and sacrifices again instituted. That bloody animal 
sacrifices should again be offered to God on an altar for a thous- 
and years is shocking to most Christian readers of the epistle 
to the Hebrews and of the writings of Paul, in which such sac- 
rifices are constantly represented as being a shadow of the sac- 
rifice of Christ for the sins of the world, and as having passed 
away when that which they predicted was accomplished. Even 
some premillenarians are evidently shocked by such an idea. 
Though their logic requires such return to Judaistic practises, 
yet some of them inconsistently refuse to admit its reality. But 
many of them, including several of their highest authorities, 
unhesitatingly teach the reestablishment of the entire ritual of 
Mosaic sacrifices. 

Probably no higher or more widely recognized authority on 
premillenarianism can be cited than Dr. G. Campbell Morgan. 
In writing on ‘‘The Golden Age’’ he says, ‘‘ Palestine, reinhab- 
ited by the nation of Israel, is to be redivided; and each tribe 
will return, not to the section of land previously occupied, but 
to a portion which stretches from the seaboard across the land. 


MILLENARIANISM 627 


Jerusalem is to be rebuilt, and will possess a temple far larger 
and more magnificent than before, the size of which is given by 
Ezekiel. The city will not merely be the seat of rule exercised 
over Israel; but the metropolis of government for the world- 
wide worship of God. In the past its sacrifices and oblations 
pointed on to Christ; but these, restored in the millennium, will 
be offered in memory of the work which Jesus accomplished on 
the cross’’ (God’s Methods With Man, pp. 117-118). 

An attempt is here made to show these alleged sacrifices of 
the millennial age, which are supposed to be described in Ezek. 
40-48 and Isa. 66:20, 23, are to be offered, not for atonement, 
nor for a type of it, but as a memorial of the accomplished atone- 
ment of Christ. But such a theory can not be admitted, for in 
Ezek, 43:19, 20, it is said, ‘‘Thou shalt give to the priests 

.. a young bullock for a sin-offering. And thou shalt take of 
the blood thereof, and put it on the four horns of it, and on the 
four corners of the ledge, and upon the border round about: 
thus shalt thou cleanse it and make atonement for it’’ (A. S. V.). 
If in that future age these offerings are thus to be offered for 
sin then the inspired writer to the Hebrews was in error in 
saying, ‘‘ We are sanctified through the offering of the body of 
Christ once for all’’ (Heb. 10:10) ; and ‘‘ by one offering he hath 
perfected forever them that are sanctified’’ (v. 14); also ‘‘now 
where remission of these is, there is no more offeryng for sin”’ 
(vy. 18). How much more reasonable to recognize the symbolic 
element in these prophecies, and the glory there predicted as 
pertaining to the glorious church of God in the Christian dis- 
pensation! Such an interpretation accords perfectly with the 
entire New Testament. 

3. No Three Comings of Christ—Doubtless the Scriptures teach 
two advents of Christ to this world, one of which is past and the 
other in the future. Premillenarians, however, expect yet two 
comings of Christ in the future. Of these future comings, they 
affirm that he will first come to resurrect the dead saints and 
catch up into the air with them those saints who are yet living. 
This coming is called by premillenarians ‘‘the rapture,’’ which 
means to be caught up. Ata later time, they affirm, he will come 
again with his saints, when he will be visible to all. This is 
ealled ‘‘the revelation.’’ (See Blackstone, Jesus Is Coming, 


628 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


p. 75). The idea of these two supposed future comings of Christ 
is an essential element of their theory. 

They depend for support of this distinction principally upon 
1 Thess. 4:14-17. ‘‘For if we believe that Jesus died and rose 
again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring 
with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, 
that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord 
shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself 
shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the 
archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ 
shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught 
up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the 
air: and so shall we ever be withthe Lord.’’ The whole purpose 
of the Apostle in writing these words was to tell the order of 
God’s dealings with the righteous at Christ’s coming and thus 
allay the fears of those to whom he wrote about their dead 
brethren. The wicked are left out of the consideration entirely. 
Therefore the statement that ‘‘the dead in Christ shall rise first’’ 
has no reference to the time of their resurrection in relation to 
the resurrection of the wicked, but as is clear from the following 
verse it is ‘‘first’’ in relation to those righteous living at Christ’s 
coming, who will then be caught up together with the resurrected 
righteous who have died. This text gives support neither to a 
double resurrection nor to two future comings of Christ. 

But, it is argued by Blackstone, Christ must first come for 
his saints before he can come wiih them. This is to deny that 
the spirits of the righteous dead are now with Christ in heaven, 
Which Paul affirms (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:21). All which Christ 
is to accomplish when he comes in the future can and will be 
accomplished at one coming. The Bible teaches but one future 
advent of Christ. With the disproof of three advents, two res- 
urrections, and a millennium, no ground remains for affirming 
four judgments, as is done by premillenarians. 

4. No Great Tribulation—According to premillenarians the 
period between the supposed rapture and revelation, which they 
usually regard as seven years in duration, identifying it with the 
seventieth week of Dan. 9: 27, will be a time of great tribulation 
to the wicked, who are to be left on the earth during that time. 
They describe this period in many details and appear to have 
almost superhuman knowledge concerning it. (See Blackstone, 


MILLENARIANISM 629 


Jesus Is Coming, p. 98.) But the whole idea is an ungrounded 
assumption. Various texts are supposed to refer to it, but no 
true exegesis of them finds any such meaning. The ‘‘great trib- 
ulation’’ of Matt. 24:21 refers to the great suffering of the 
Jews at the destruction of Jerusalem, which is certainly the point 
of discussion beginning with v. 15. There is no reason for un- 
derstanding that this or other texts appealed to in this con- 
nection teach such a period of trouble as they are assumed to 
teach. 

5. No Personal Antichrist——During the period of great trib- 
ulation, premillenarians hold that the world will be ruled by a 
personal antichrist. They regard the antichrist power described 
in 2 Thess, 2: 3-12 as being the one who shall rule during the 
‘‘tribulation.’’ He is supposed to be a person rather than a 
spirit of antichrist, because he is called ‘‘that man of sin.”’ 
But ‘‘man’’ does not always refer to a person. It may refer to 
a power or a body of people. An example of such a use is found 
in Eph. 2: 15 where the church, that body composed of both Jews 
and Gentiles, is called ‘‘one new man.’’ In a former chapter 
this ‘‘man of sin’’ was shown to be the papacy. Such has been 
the common Protestant understanding of it. 

Antichrist is not to arise in the future. He has already come. 
‘‘And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come 
in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, 
whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already 
is it in the world’’ (1 John 4:3). The inspired writer here uses 
the term in its broad etymological sense of being opposed to 
Christ. Whatever is opposed to Christ is antichrist. Here the 
premillenarian objects that it is said that only the spirit of anti- 
christ is now in the world. But the same writer says more. ‘‘As 
ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many 
antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time’’ (1 John 
rl yt 

6. No Need, Time, Nor Place for Millennium.—God has a pur- 
pose in all he does. In all that premillenarians hold concerning 
the supposed reign of Christ on earth, there does not appear an 
important purpose to be attained. No millennium is necessary 
to the salvation of men. Perfect conditions for probation of free 
moral beings now exist. The lack of divine compulsion on the 
one hand and the drawing of God’s Spirit on the other hand, 


630 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


along with man’s freedom, make the choice of salvation and a 
life of holiness possible without making it necessary. If more 
miraculous, divine manifestations were more conducive to the 
salvation of men and yet consistent with their moral freedom, 
then the lack of those manifestations in this present age reflects 
on the goodness and holiness of God. To whatever extent men 
may be constrained by supernatural manifestations of power in 
a future age to serve God, to that extent they cease to serve him 
freely. But God’s glory demands that men serve him from free 
choice. ‘‘ Whosoever will’’ may be saved now. Even the Jews 
can have no better opportunity for salvation in the future. 

No millennium is needed for man’s happiness. Surely the 
imaginary joys of a millennial age can not exceed the blessed- 
ness of heaven. Therefore a millennium can afford no advantage 
in human happiness over the entrance of the righteous to heaven 
instead. Neither is a millennium needed for the divine glory. 
Christ rules the physical universe now, and also the moral uni- 
verse. He rules in the moral realm, not by depriving men of 
freedom and compelling them to do good, but by his bringing 
them to account for their acts, which is the highest form of gov- 
ernment. Wickedness prevails now only as God permits it in 
consistency with his moral government. But every knee shall 
bow to him. in the day of final retribution. 

The Scriptural order of events at the advent of Christ allows 
no time for a millennium. When Christ comes all the dead will 
be immediately raised (John 5:28, 29); they will be raised by 
the ‘‘trump of God’’ (1 Thess. 4: 16), which is the ‘‘last trump”’ 
(1 Cor. 15: 52). There is no trump after the last. Then the 
eternal state begins. When Christ comes the judgment will 
take place and men shall at once enter upon their eternal states 
(Matt, 25:31; 2 Thess. 1:8; Matt. 16:27). 

Neither do the Seriptures allow any place for a millennium. 
The earth is to be destroyed on the occasion of his coming. This 
is clear from 2 Pet. 3:4-12. The ‘‘coming’’ of the Lord (v. 
4) is called the ‘‘day of the Lord’’ (v.10). The Apostle states 
that the earth and the works in it will on that day be burned up. 
This leaves no place for a thousand-year reign of Christ on earth 
at his coming, 

VII. Premillenarian Questions 
1. The Earth Full of the Knowledge of the Lord—T 0 under- 


MILLENARIANISM 631 


stand many predictions of the world-wide worship of Jehovah, 
it is important to remember that the true religion was anciently 
confined to the people of Israel. By the preaching of the gospel 
to the Gentiles the knowledge of the true religion has spread 
over the earth. ‘‘All the ends of the world shall remember 
and turn unto the Lord’’ (Psa. 22: 27). ‘‘All the ends of the 
earth shall fear him’’ (Psa. 67:7). These merely predict the 
salvation of persons in the remotest nations of earth, and the 
prediction is being fulfilled today. That this is the correct in- 
terpretation is certain from Paul’s interpretation in Acts 13: 
47 of a similar expression found in Isa. 42:6. In Isa. 2:2 it 
is said of the mountain of the Lord’s house that ‘‘all nations shall 
flow unto it.’’ The ‘‘mountain of the Lord’s House’’ is the 
church. What is said of it was to take place in the last days, 
which is the present Christian dispensation (Heb. 1:2). Not 
only the Jews, but men of all nations are now included in God’s 
ehurch. The worship of the true God is becoming world-wide. 
‘‘The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the 
waters cover the sea’’ (Isa. 11:9). It is no longer confined to 
the Israelitish nation, but is now the heritage of all nations. 
Such an interpretation of these texts has New Testament sup- 
port. 

2. Universal Peace, Blessings, and Prosperity—The question is 
sometimes asked, When shall men “‘beat their swords into plow- 
shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks’’? (Isa. 2:4). <Ac- 
cording to the context this is to take place among! those who are 
in God’s church. Regeneration makes men peaceable. The same 
idea is expressed in the prediction of peace among animals 
(Isa. 11: 6-9). ‘‘They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy 
mountain,’’ which means the church. Through salvation men are 
made peaceable. In Isa. 35:1 is the statement that ‘‘the desert 

. Shall blossom as the rose.’’ In verse 6 we read, ‘‘In the 
wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.’’ 
But when shall this be? In that same verse and the preceding 
one is the prediction that ‘‘the eyes of the blind shall be opened, 
and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame 
man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing.’’ Jesus’ 
answer to the messengers of John the Baptist is practically an 
application of the text in Isaiah 35 to his own time. Doubtless 
the beautiful words of the prophet are a figurative representa- 


632 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


tion of the blessings of the kingdom of Christ at the present time. 

Space does not allow a consideration of other texts of Scrip- 
ture which premillenarians frequently interpret in support of 
their theory. What has been said under ‘‘ Hermeneutic Prin- 
ciples’’ and the examples of interpretation in foregoing pages 
sufficiently show, not only that another than the premillenarian 
interpretation is reasonable, but also the correct one. Certainly 
the many conclusive arguments which show the falsity of the 
theory are exclusive of any strained interpretations of texts in 
support of it. 


CHAPTER IIT 
CHRIST’S SECOND ADVENT AND ITS CONCOMITANTS 


The great events of Christian eschatology are the second ad- 
vent of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the general judg- 
ment, and the end of the world. Like all future events, the 
reality of these can not be naturally known. Yet we have good 
eround for our belief in them in the many predictions of their 
occurrence in the Scriptures. The extent to which we may know 
the order of events at Christ’s advent and their nature in detail 
is determined by the nature and purpose of Scripture prophecy. 

Not uncommonly have interpreters of the Biblical prophecies 
assumed that those predictions were of the nature of inverted 
history by which God has given to us a plan in detail of all the 
future events there predicted. Such interpreters, in whose ranks 
are many premillenarians, set forth elaborate schemes of escha- 
tological events, describing in detail the several stages of the 
process, often by means of complex diagrams, and frequently 
gvoing so far as to set the time when Christ will come. That 
some of these are erroneous has been shown by the failure of 
their accomplishment at the time set. Prophecy is not primarily 
for the purpose of instruction. Evidently it does afford a certain 
amount of instruction, but that is subordinate to its primary 
purpose, which is moral impression. 

Much may be known of the nature of unfulfilled prophecy 
relative to Christ’s second advent, and prophecy in general, by 
a careful study of that which relates to his first advent, which 
has been fulfilled. Concerning the first advent of Christ, it was 
predicted that he would be a prophet like unto Moses, a priest 
ereater than Aaron, and a king mightier than David. He was to 
reign in righteousness and great glory, and wonderful works 
were to be accomplished. Viewing those predictions in the light 
of their fulfilment, it is clear that they have been fulfilled in 
detail in a wonderful manner. But until they were fulfilled but 
few of the details were ever correctly understood even by the 
most spiritually-minded. With all the instruction Jesus had 
given his apostles, they still expected him to set up an earthly 
kingdom after his resurrection. But the failure of the devout 
Jew properly to understand those prophecies of Jesus’ first ad- 


vent did not deprive him of the religious and moral benefit which 
633 


634 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


God intended they should afford. They awakened in him an- 
ticipation and hope of future deliverance and by so doing led 
him to be prepared for the events predicted. So the predictions 
of the second advent have practical value principally in in- 
fluencing men to be ready to meet Christ at his coming. The 
leading purpose of these prophecies is to make a general impres- 
sion conducive to spiritual excellence, not to furnish us a plan 
in detail of the future. Much is left in obscurity concerning 
the second coming and concomitant events. 


I. The Second Coming of Christ 


We are living between two advents of Christ to this world. 
At the first he appeared incarnate to reveal the way of salvation 
and to make atonement for sin. He will come again at some 
future time in great power and glory to raise the dead, judge the 
world, and destroy the earth. The questions of special interest 
in connection with his second advent are concerning the fact, 
the nature, and the time of his coming. 

1. The Fact of His Coming.—That Christ will come again to 
the world is the common belief of Christians of all schools of 
thought. Infidels may scoff and say, ‘‘ Where is the promise of 
his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue 
as they were from the beginning of the creation.’’ But those 
who believe the New Testament have abundant proof that Jesus 
will surely come again. ‘“‘If I go and prepare a place for you, 
I will come again, and receive you unto myself’’ (John 14:3). 
‘‘ As the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto 
the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be’’ (Matt. 
24:27). ‘*The Lord himself shall descend from heaven’’ (1 
Thess. 4:16). ‘‘Our conversation is in heaven; from whence 
also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ’’ (Phil. 3: 20). 
‘‘Unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time 
without sin unto salvation’’ (Heb. 9:28). Very many other 
texts might be cited in proof of the fact of a future advent of 
Christ to this world. That advent is represented in the Scrip- 
tures aS necessary to the accomplishment of other important 
events, especially the resurrection, the judgment, and the end 
of the world. | 

2. The Nature of His Coming.—Though the fact of the Lord’s 
coming is generally held by Christians, yet all do not allow a 


CHRIST’S SECOND ADVENT AND ITS CONCOMITANTS § 635 


future personal coming of Christ. This has been denied by the 
‘‘liberal theology.’’ A leading representative of this view, W. 
N. Clarke, says, ‘‘ No visible return of Christ to the earth is to be 
expected’’ (An Outline of Christian Theology, p. 444). He finds 
the promised coming of Christ in all the different special divine 
workings since the ascension of Christ to heaven, and especially 
in the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. 
Doubtless the expression ‘‘ coming of the Lord”’ is used in the 
Seriptures in other senses than of his personal, visible coming. 
The disciples saw the ‘‘Son of man coming in his kingdom’”’ 
(Matt. 16:28). At the transfiguration Christ the king was re- 
vealed in his majesty though his kingdom was not fully estab- 
lished until Pentecost. In the statement ‘‘I will not leave you 
comfortless: I will come to you’’ (John 14:18), the coming of 
the Holy Spirit is doubtless referred to. Also the personal second 
advent of Christ can not be meant when in the message to the 
church of Pergamos he said, ‘‘ Repent, . . . or else I will come unto 
thee quickly’’ (Rev. 2:6). Another text that can not refer to 
the second personal advent is Matt. 10:23, ‘‘Ye shall not have 
gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.’’ 
Certainly Christ has often come during the last nineteen hundred 
years in this sense of special manifestations of his workings. 
But such a sense of his coming can not properly be thought of 
as the only mode of it. ‘The Scriptures also clearly teach a 
second, personal, visible coming of Christ which is yet future. 
As the straining eyes of the wondering disciples saw their 
ascending Lord rise higher and higher until a cloud finally ob- 
scured him from their view, two angels said to them, ‘Ye men of 
Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, 
which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like 
manner as ye have seen him go into heaven’’ (Acts 1:11). As 
the ascension was visible and personal, so will be his second ad- 
vent, according to these words. ‘‘ Hereafter shall ye see the Son 
of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the 
clouds of heaven’’ (Matt. 26:64). ‘‘Then shall all the tribes 
of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in 
the clouds of heaven with power and great glory’’ (Matt. 24: 
30). ‘*Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see 
him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the 
earth shall wail because of him’’ (Rev. 1:7). Only a greatly 


636 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


strained interpretation can find in these texts other than a per- 
sonal, visible, future coming of Christ. The coming in the clouds, 
with glory and power, with all the angels, with the spirits of the 
righteous dead (1 Thess. 4:14), and ‘‘with a shout, with the 
voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God’’ (1 Thess. 
4:16) all are congruous only with a personal coming of Christ. 

There can be no doubt that the apostles understood that 
Christ would return to earth in person. Even rationalistie in- 
terpreters admit this, but assume that they were mistaken and 
consequently were disappointed. The apostles and early Chris- 
tians were ‘‘looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious ap- 
pearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ’’ (Titus 
2:18). ‘‘Our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we 
look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ’’ (Phil. 3:20). ‘*Un- 
blameable in holiness. .. at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ 
with all his saints’’ (1 Thess. 3:13). The visible, personal ad- 
vent of Christ was the great object of their expectation. They 
expected this because Jesus had clearly promised it. To interpret 
the predictions of the second advent of Jesus as a spiritual 
coming is as unreasonable as it is for modern rationalistic Jews 
to interpret the predictions of the first coming of Christ as a spir- 
itual coming the way they are now doing. As his first advent 
was personal, so is the second coming of Christ to be personal. 

Matt. 24:34 has been assumed to be opposed to the idea of a 
second personal coming of Christ. ‘‘This generation shall not 
pass, till all these things be fulfilled.’’ Three events are under 
consideration in this chapter—the destruction of Jerusalem, the 
second advent, and the end of the world. Whether it has any 
bearing on the nature of the second coming is dependent in a 
measure on whether ‘‘all these things’’ have reference to the 
second advent, or only to the destruction of Jerusalem. If the 
latter is meant, then that event occurred forty years later and 
during the generation living when Jesus spoke these words. 
But if ‘‘all these things’’ have reference to the second advent, 
the text still does not bar the idea of a personal advent of Christ. 
The Greek term rendered ‘‘generation’’ may be translated 
“‘race.’’ Then it is a prediction that the Jewish race will endure 
until the second coming of Christ. Such a prediction is ap- 
propriate and harmonious with the context, which represents 
awful tribulation as coming upon the Jews. Certainly the text 


CHRIST’S SECOND ADVENT AND ITS CONCOMITANTS 637 


is too obscure to furnish a valid ground of objection to the per- 
sonal advent, which is clear in other texts. 

3. The Time of His Coming.—The time when Christ will return 
to earth is fully known to God. Being possessed of complete 
prescience, he must necessarily have knowledge of this as of all 
other future events. That he does know it is affirmed by Paul. 
‘*He hath appointed a day, in which he will judge the world”’ 
(Acts 17:31). To ‘‘appoint’’ means to ‘‘determine’’ or ‘‘set.’’ 

But while God knows the time of the second coming of Christ, 
it is known to no man. ‘‘Of that day and hour knoweth no man, 
no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only’’ (Matt. 24: 
36). To most men living when he comes, the advent of Christ 
will be unexpected. It is not to be preceded by any great change 
in the natural order of things. ‘‘As the days of Noah were, so 
shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days 
that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marry- 
ing and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into 
the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all 
away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be’’ (Matt. 
24: 37-39). In this text the moral state of the world at Christ’s 
coming is not under consideration. It merely shows that as that 
awful catastrophe came suddenly and without warning, so the 
second advent will be unexpected by the world at large. ‘‘The 
day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night’’ (2 Pet. 3:10). 
It will come when not expected and find many unprepared. 
A knowledge of the time of the Lord’s coming is not important 
to men. Their ignorance of the time when they will be called 
upon to give account for their deeds is harmonious with the best 
conditions of probation. Men ought always to be ready to meet 
him, 

However, the fact that no man knew in Jesus’ day when 
Christ will come is no proof that some of the righteous may not 
have certain premonitions of his coming immediately before the 
event. Though the antedeluvians were not expecting a flood 
when it came, yet Noah was divinely informed of it. Jesus’ 
use of this illustration does not necessarily imply that the right- 
eous will be forewarned of Christ’s coming, but it is not inhar- 
monious with such an idea. But evidently whatever might be 
made known to the righteous as to the near approach of the end 
of the world, it will not be inconsistent with proper conditions of 


638 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


probation for the world at large. It will not be such knowledge 
as will make possible dependable prophecies of the exact time of 
the end. All such prophecies may well be regarded as unworthy 
of belief. 

4. The Signs of His Coming.—The discourse in Matthew 24 and 
25 is Jesus’ answer to the three questions of his disciples ‘‘ When 
shall these things be [the destruction of the temple]? and what 
shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”’ 
(Matt. 24:3). As the disciples evidently thought of these events 
as simultaneous, so Jesus answered the questions without indi- 
cating clearly in all cases of which event he spoke. He gave some 
practical information about the sign of the destruction of Jeru- 
salem and urged his disciples .to flee from the city when that 
sign was seen. But no clear sign was given by him by which the 
near approach of the end of the world may be known. Jesus 
rather devoted the larger part of his discourse to warning them 
always to be ready, for the time of his coming could not be known 
by them. 

There are, however, in various places in the New Testament 
predictions of events to take place before the end of the world. 
As long as those events have not taken place the end is not yet. 
This was Paul’s argument to the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 2: 3- 
8). Christ was not to come until there first came a ‘‘falling 
away’’ or an apostasy. Not only in this text, but also in other 
places, especially in the symbolic prophecies of Daniel and the 
Revelation, is this great apostasy foretold. In these two books 
of the Bible and elsewhere are also predictions of a restoration 
from the apostasy, a time when the gospel light would again 
shine (Zech. 14:6, 7). Again Jesus said, ‘‘This gospel of the 
kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all 
nations; and then shall the end come’’ (Matt. 24:14). 

Doubtless the great apostasy has come and is largely past. 
This bar, then, to the advent of Christ does not now exist as in 
Paul’s day. The restoration of truth predicted is also evidently 
being now accomplished. We are now in the ‘‘evening time,’’ 
but the extent to which ‘‘it shall be light,’’ or how long the eve- 
ning time shall continue we have no means of knowing. Now as 
never before in the history of Christianity is the gospel being 
preached to all nations. The length of time that will elapse be- 
fore the world shall be evangelized can only be conjectured. 


CHRIST’S SECOND ADVENT AND ITS CONCOMITANTS 639 


Doubtless the means of rapid travel and quick communication 
provided by modern invention will mean much in hastening the 
spread of the gospel. But we are not told how thorough must 
be that evangelization of the world, neither can we be certain 
that the end will come immediately when it is accomplished. 
Therefore it may be properly said that we can not determine by 
any signs except in a very general way the time of Christ’s second 
coming. 
Il. The General Resurrection 

1. The Fact of a General Resurrection—The doctrine of a res- 
urrection of the dead is commonly believed by Christians, though 
there are differences of understanding concerning what is sig- 
nified by the expression. No doctrine has a surer basis in the 
Seriptures than does this. The words ‘‘general resurrection”’ 
have reference to the resurrection of all the dead, both the 
wicked and the righteous, as distinguished from the resurrection 
of Christ, of others by Jesus or holy men of the past, or of a 
resurrection of the righteous first and of the wicked at a later 
time. A general resurrection is taught by the Bible. ‘‘Many 
of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to 
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt’’ 
(Dan. 12:2). ‘‘The hour is coming, in the which all that are in 
the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that 
have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have 
done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation’’ (John 5: 28, 
29). ‘‘There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the 
just and unjust’’ (Acts 24:15). All these texts clearly teach 
a general resurrection. The same truth is definitely implied in 
all those texts which state that the righteous shall be raised up 
‘fat the last day’’ (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54). There is no day 
after the last day, and evidently no resurrection can take place 
a thousand years after the last day. But the singleness of the 
resurrection has been already shown in the preceding chapter 
and need not be further discussed here, 

The resurrection will take place coincident with the second 
coming of Christ. ‘‘When the Son of man shall come in his 
glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon 
the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all 
nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a 
shepherd divideth his sheep from his goats’’ (Matt. 25: 31, 32). 


640 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


That the dead will be raised at the time of the second advent is 
clear from 1 Thess. 4:16, also 1 Cor. 15:23. These two texts 
and the whole of 1 Cor. 15 discuss particularly the resurrection 
of the righteous, because conditions required the discussion of 
only that, but with the singleness of the resurrection proved, 
these texts for the most part are applicable to the subject of the 
general resurrection. 

The fact of the resurrection is clearly taught by revelation, 
but can not be otherwise known. All attempts to show that 
reason requires it are fruitless. It can not properly be reasoned 
that the resurrection of the body is necessary to the future life 
of the soul. Neither may it be properly said that because the 
body is a sharer in probation, it must therefore be raised in order 
to share in future retribution. The body is but an instrument 
of the spirit and in no wise responsible for the acts done by it. 
Though reason can not furnish evidence of a resurrection, yet 
with the Scripture supporting the doctrine it may readily be 
reasoned that it is advantageous in making more real to the 
average person the truth of future existence and in inspiring 
hope of life hereafter. 

2. The Nature of the Resurrected Bodies.—The resurrected body 
is a material body, though it is greatly different from natural 
bodies in that it is immortalized and glorified. If that be not 
a material body which is to exist in the future, then is there no 
resurrection. The very idea of resurrection implies that that be 
raised up which has fallen down or died. The spirit does not 
die, but has continuous conscious existence after death; there- 
fore it can not be the subject of the resurrection from the dead. 
Only the body dies; therefore only it can be raised from the 
dead. If it be objected that ‘‘it is sown a natural body; it is 
raised a spiritual body,’’ let it be said in reply that it is spiritual 
only as to state and as distinguished from the ‘‘natural body.’’ 
The resurrection is a transformation, not a transubstantiation, 
as would be true if the essence of the resurrected body were 
spirit rather than matter. Also if it were of the same essence 
with the spirit, then would the spirit be incorporated in a spirit. 

The resurrection of Christ is both a proof of the fact and 
an example of the nature of the general resurrection. ‘‘Now 
is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them 
that slept’’ (1 Cor. 15:20). His dead body was laid in the tomb. 


CHRIST’S SECOND ADVENT AND ITS CONCOMITANTS 641 


When he was resurrected that body disappeared from the tomb. 
It, not another body, was raised from the dead, as was evident 
from the sears of the nails and of the spear in it. It was a 
material body that could be known through the senses of sight 
and touch, as only matter can be known. 

The entire fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians is devoted to 
the discussion of the fact of the resurrection and the nature of 
the resurrected body. It is addressed to Grecian Christians 
who were meeting the Gnostic philosophy. This philosophy as- 
sumed that matter is essentially evil and that disembodied spir- 
its are much happier without bodies; therefore it was said ‘‘there 
is no resurrection of the dead.’’ In answering the objectors’ 
question, ‘‘ With what body do they come?’’ Paul does not dis- 
allow the materiality of the resurrected body, as he would have 
done had such an admission been according to the truth, but he 
rather shows that the body is so changed that it ceases to possess 
objectionable qualities. ‘‘It is sown in corruption; it igs raised 
in incorruption: it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: 
it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural 
body; it is raised a spiritual body’’ (vs. 42-44). 

We can know but little concerning the essential nature and 
powers of the resurrected body. We have nothing in experience 
with which to compare it. The Scripture tells us somewhat con- 
cerning Jesus’ resurrected body, but we have no means of know- 
ing how much of the phenomena recorded of it is to be attri- 
buted to its essential nature and what was the result of his di- 
vine power such as he displayed before his crucifixion, as when 
he walked on the water. Neither do we know what changes may 
have occurred in it at the ascension. His being able to enter a 
room with the doors closed and to vanish similarly may have 
been in spite of the essential nature of his body. We know the 
resurrected bodies will be immortal; ‘‘Neither can they die any 
more’’ (Luke 20:36). Matter as we now know it is so con- 
stituted internally and so conditioned externally that it is sub- 
ject to dissolution. God will so change the resurrection body as 
to internal constitution and so condition it that it will be in- 
corruptible. In view of the power of God to do this, the im- 
mortality of matter is not impossible. The resurrected body is 
raised in ‘‘glory,’’? whatever that may mean. It may reason- 
ably be assumed from the words ‘‘it is raised in power’’ that 


642 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the resurrected body will be free from all defects and mutila- 
tions. Christ’s body bearing the scars was probably an excep- 
tion for a special purpose. 

3. The Question of Identity—In some sense the resurrection 
body will be identical with the body which is placed in the grave. 
If the body in which we die is not the subject of the resurrection, 
then that future body will not be a resurrected body, but a new 
creation. But the Scriptures teach a resurrection of dead bodies, 
not a transmigration of spirits to newly created bodies. That 
this is true was exemplified in Christ, who was the first-fruits 
of them that slept. His dead body which was laid in the tomb 
was raised to live again. Jesus said to those who required a 
sign, ‘‘Destroy this body, and in three days I will raise 2 up 
again.’’ He did not say he would find or create another body 
if the first were destroyed. 

But there may be distinguished an absolute identity and also 
a proper identity. An absolute identity requires every par- 
ticle of which the body is composed at a particular time. A 
proper identity requires only such a degree of sameness as is 
true of the body at widely separated periods of the present life. 
We are told that each seven years throughout life every atom 
in the body is exchanged for another. If we meet a friend after 
a lapse of ten or twenty years we recognize him though he has 
an entirely new body as to the matter of which it is composed. 
Yet in a proper sense he possesses the same body as formerly. 
It is practically identical as to shape, size, and appearance. It 
is identical in a real sense. This at least illustrates the possi- 
bility of practical identity of the resurrection body with that 
which dies without its being absolutely identical. 

Such a view of identity also furnishes an answer to some of 
the common objections to the idea of a resurrection. It is rea- 
soned that a man’s body decays and crumbles to dust, from 
which vegetation grows, and this vegetation is eaten by other 
men so that some of the atoms that formed the body of the first 
man come also to be included as a constituent part of the body 
of the second. Instances of cannibalism are cited as similarly 
making confusion for a resurrection. Great confusion of par- 
ticles of bodies is conceivable, but doubtless no great difficulty 
really exists at this point, even for an absolute identity of the 
body that is raised with that which dies. But however great 


CHRIST’S SECOND ADVENT AND ITS CONCOMITANTS 643 


may be the difficulties the idea of proper identity meets them 
all. As to any mere scattering of the atoms of a particular body, 
no difficulty shall exist for the omnipresent and almighty God 
if his purpose requires in order to resurrection a bringing to- 
gether of the identical matter of the body which dies. 


Ili. The Final Judgment 


1. Truth of a Future Judgment.—Almost no religious idea, 
unless it be the truth of the Divine existence, has been more 
generally believed by all men than that of a future judgment. 
Underlying this truth are the ideas of the justice of God, his 
moral government, and human probation. The very nature of 
probation is such that the execution of judgment is implied. 
That judgment can not be executed in full until the close of 
probation is also implied. Fully to punish sin during the pro- 
bationary period would be to cause men to refrain from sin for 
fear of punishment rather than from love for God and right- 
eousness. A future judgment beyond this life is a requirement 
of reason especially because of the lack of a full execution of 
justice in the present state. The righteous do not always re- 
ceive in this life the reward of their righteousness, nor are the 
wicked fully punished according to their iniquity. Because jus- 
tice is not accomplished here, there will be a time of judgment 
beyond this life. 

The Seriptures very definitely set forth the fact of a future 
judgment. ‘‘The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out 
of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judg- 
ment to be punished’’ (2 Pet. 2:9). ‘‘He hath appointed a 
day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by 
that man whom he hath ordained’’ (Acts 17:31). ‘‘We shall 
all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ’? (Rom. 14:10). 
‘“It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of 
judgment, than for thee’’ (Matt. 11:24). The people of Sodom 
had long since died, but Jesus here represents their judgment 
as yet future. It will be coincident with the advent of Christ. 
- The most elaborate and specific account of the judgment given 
in the Bible is that contained in Matt. 25: 31-46, where it is 
represented as taking place immediately following the second 
coming of Christ. ‘‘The Son of man shall come in the glory of 
his father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man 


644 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


according to his works’’ (Matt. 16:27). ‘‘The Lord Jesus 
Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appear- 
ing and his kingdom’’ (2 Tim. 4:1). 

The judgment will take place after the general resurrection. 
‘Hor the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves 
shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done 
good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done 
evil, unto the resurrection of damnation’’ (John 5: 28, 29). The 
distribution of reward and punishment subsequent to the resur- 
rection implies the judgment. ‘‘And I saw the dead, small and 
creat, stand before God; and the bookg were opened: and an- 
other book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead 
were judged out of those things which were written in the books, 
according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which 
were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which 
were in them: and they were judged every man according to 
their works’’ (Rev. 20:12, 18). The statement that the sea 
gave up the dead which were in it implies the resurrection. 
Subsequent to that the judgment is said to occur. It is to occur 
at the end of the world. ‘‘Let both grow together until the 
harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, 
Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to 
burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn... . The harvest 
is the end of the world. . . . So shall it be at the end of the 
world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from 
among the just’’ (Matt. 13:30, 39, 49). 

It is not a protracted process, but a definite time, a day. 
‘“Day’’ here signifies a definite time whether it be longer or 
shorter than twenty-four hours. ‘‘Every idle word that men 
shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judg- 
ment’’ (Matt. 12:36). Several of the foregoing texts describe 
it as being a “‘day.”’ 

Various unscriptural theories are held concerning the judg- 
ment: (1) that the day of judgment is the gospel dispensation ; 
(2) that the judgment of each individual is God’s rule over 
him throughout this life; (3) that the judgment-day is a future 
millennial age when Christ will judge the world in the sense of 
ruling over it; (4) that the only judgment is the natural con- 
sequence of good and evil in the sense of reward and punish- 
ment; (5) and the rationalistic view that there will be no time 


CHRIST’S SECOND ADVENT AND ITS CONCOMITANTS 645 


of general manifestation of righteousness, but that judgment 
consists only of rewarding or punishing men. The Scripture 
texts cited sufficiently refute all these theories. 

2. Nature of the Final Judgment.—The future judgment will 
be a general judgment in the sense that all men both good and 
evil will be judged at one and the same time. No rational evi- 
dence of a general judgment is possible, but the Scriptures are 
replete with such proofs. Several texts concerning the future 
judgment already quoted represent it as a general judgment. 
This is especially clear in the discourse of Jesus recorded in 
Matt. 25: 31-46. ‘‘When the Son of man shall come in his glory, 
and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the 
throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations: 
and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd 
divideth his sheep. from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on 
his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King 
say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, 
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of 
the world. ... Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, 
Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for 
the devil and his angels’’ (vs. 31-34, 41). Certainly these words 
are intelligible only as interpreted of a general Judgment. 

We are dependent principally upon the foregoing words of 
Jesus and upon the description given in Rev. 20: 11-15 for what- 
ever we may know concerning the manner of the final Judgment. 
In both texts the judgment is represented ag being conducted as 
court trials were commonly conducted by Oriental kings and 
rulers of that time. The judge, Christ, is to sit upon a great 
white throne of glory. As officers of the law arrest men and 
bring them before the judge, so the angels will bring all men 
before Christ for judgment. Rewards and punishments are 
meted out according to their works and the Revelator represents 
them as judged ‘‘out of the books.’’ To what extent are these 
descriptions figurative and to what extent do they describe the 
actual manner of the final judgment? Doubtless the account 
in Revelation 20 is symbolic as is the Book of Revelation in 
general. The account by Jesus in Matthew 25 is probably best 
understood as a parable or a figurative representation. There 
has been much speculation in the past concerning the manner 
in which the judgment should be arranged so the countless mil- 


646 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


lions of earth shall be able to gather before the throne of the 
judge. That throne has usually been assumed to be so high 
that it will be visible from a large portion of the earth, as is the 
sun. But this is only speculation. That any such literal pro- 
cess of adjudication as described will take place in which the 
judge will converse with the different groups is doubtful. These 
descriptions of the judgment scene are designed to teach great 
moral truths, not the outward form of the proceedings. Doubt- 
less those descriptions set forth the truth of a real judgment 
and are calculated to make a deep impression on men’s minds 
as to the solemnity of it, but only speculation is possible as to 
the exact manner of it, and speculation is useless. 

Christ will be the judge. ‘‘The Father judgeth no man, but 
hath committed all judgment unto the Son’’ (John 5:22). It 
is appropriate that he who is the Savior of men and who died 
to save them should be their judge. He who was tempted in 
all points like as we are, therefore is qualified to sympathize 
with us, and yet as infinite in all perfections is well qualified 
justly to judge the world. The subjects of the judgment are all 
men. Probably the evil angels who are delivered ‘‘into chains 
of darkness, to be reserved unto Judgment’’ (2 Pet. 2:4) will be 
judged at the time men are judged. 

3. Object of the Final Judgment—The question may well be 
asked, If immediately succeeding death retribution comes upon 
men, if the righteous are comforted in Paradise as was Lazarus, 
the beggar, and if the wicked are tormented in heJl as was the 
rich man, then what can be the value of a genertil judgment? 
Doubtless these retributions are according to men’s characters; 
consequently character must be known to God and to the in- 
dividual who is rewarded or punished at the time of his death. 
Therefore the final judgment can not properly be thought of as 
a time for the ascertainment of character. Probably the object 
of it is not revealed. We are assured of the fact of a general 
judgment when Christ comes, and we believe in it because it is 
taught by the Scriptures. We believe in it even if we can not 
explain it. 

Though we may be unable to give all the reasons for a gen- 
eral judgment and possibly not the principal ones, yet some rea- 
sons for it are apparent. It will be a time, not for the ascer- 
tainment of character, but for the manifestation of it. Then 


CHRIST’S SECOND ADVENT AND ITS CONCOMITANTS 647 


God will assign just retribution. It will furnish a declaration 
of the uprightness of God to all moral beings as does the 
death of Christ now. A general judgment is unnecessary to the 
distribution of just reward and punishment. All of that might 
be effected between God and the individual alone. But for the 
full and complete exhibition and proclamation of divine jus- 
tice toward all moral beings, fully to make known the glory of 
the divine administration, a general Judgment is important. 

4, Standards of the Final Judgment.—Jesus said of those who 
rejected his words, ‘‘The word that I have spoken, the same shall 
judge him in the last day’’ (John 12:48). Paul said, ‘‘For as 
many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: 
and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the 
law’’ (Rom. 2:12). The Word of God is the primary standard 
of Judgment. In the nature of things men are obligated to 
obey whatever commandments God has given them. But they 
are responsible and amenable to God’s law only so far as that 
law has been given to them. Only those to whom the Mosaic 
law was given shall be judged by it. Only those who know the 
teachings of the New Testament as the law of God may properly 
be Judged by it. Merely to have lived during the dispensation 
of one or the other of these laws does not of itself make one 
amenable to that law. The unevangelized people of the pres- 
ent time are, as were also the non-Hebrew peoples of pre-Chris- 
tian times, obligated to conform to whatever other laws God may 
have revealed to them as individuals or as groups, as in the case 
of the family of Noah, but they are especially to be judged by 
the law of their moral nature written in their hearts. 

But no revealed law can be an absolute standard of judg- 
ment, because of human limitations. The mere possession of 
a copy of the Bible can not make one amenable to its absolute 
standard of conduct. The person may lack opportunity to study 
it or to hear it expounded thoroughly, or he may lack intellec- 
tual capacity fully to comprehend its principles and precepts. 
Also he may lack opportunity to do or to refrain from doing 
what it enjoins. The standard by which men will be justified or 
condemned in the final judgment is identical! with that standard 
by which their consciences approve or disapprove acts in this 
life. That standard accords with the Word of God only to the 
extent one has knowledge of that Word, and it is variable as a 


648 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


consequence of one’s learning more of the will of God or what 
one supposes is the will of God. It is not determined by what 
the individual wishes to believe, but by what he does under- 
stand to be the will of God. Therefore God will approve or 
condemn men at the final judgment as their consciences approve 
or condemn them. They will be judged according to their 
hearts’ attitude and the motive for their acts in this life rather 
than according to the conformity or lack of conformity of the 
acts with any external standard. 

But a special element, the grace of Christ, will furnish a 
ground of judgment for those who have trusted in it for the 
pardon of past sins. Though conscience condemned them for 
violation of its recognized standard of right, yet God will ap- 
prove them in the final judgment. But the merits of Christ will 
be a ground of judgment only for those who trust in him. All 
others will be judged in accordance with that standard which 
binds their individual consciences. 


IV. End of the World 


By the end of the world is meant the destruction or future 
conflagration of the earth. The disposition which shall be made 
of the earth after the close of the earthly history of the human 
race is of no theological importance and is only of speculative 
interest. 

1. Truth of the Destruction of the Earth—The following are 
some of the passages of Scripture setting forth the destruction 
of the earth. ‘‘Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: 
and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, 
but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a 
earment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall 
be changed’’ (Psa. 102: 25, 26). ‘‘The heavens shall vanish 
away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment’’ 
(Isa. 51:6). ‘*‘Heaven and earth shall pass away’’ (Matt. 24: 
35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33). ‘“‘The world that then was, 
being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and 
earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, re- 
served unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of 
ungodly men... . The day of the Lord will come as a thief in 
the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great 
noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth 


CHRIST’S SECOND ADVENT AND ITS CONCOMITANTS 649 


also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. . 
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens 
and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness’’ (2 Pet. 3: 6- 
13). ‘‘I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from 
whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was 
found no place for them’’ (Rev. 20:11). ‘‘I saw a new heaven 
and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were 
passed away; and there was no more sea’’ (Rev. 21:1). 

Even though some of these texts could be interpreted ag re- 
ferring to great revolutions in church and state, yet evidently 
that by Peter must be understood literally. He places the earth’s 
future destruction by fire in distinct antithesis with its former 
destruction by water. As the one was a literal destruction by 
literal water, so the other will be a literal destruction by literal 
fire. With this evidence that this text represents a literal de- 
struction of the earth, the fact so established becomes proper 
cround for the literal interpretation of other texts teaching a 
destruction of the earth. 

The Scripture truth of a future destruction of the earth is 
in no way contradictory to science. According to the statements 
of the Scriptures matter has had a beginning in time, a truth 
with which science is not inharmonious. Therefore it may have 
an end, especially as to its orderly forms, which even scientists 
affirm have had a beginning. The universe was once a shape- 
less mass. Some scientists assume it was in a gaseous state. It 
is continually undergoing both physical and chemical change. 
A return of it to its primitive condition is not improbable even 
apart from anything the Scriptures state. 

The time of the destruction of the earth is to be when Christ 
comes again (2 Pet. 3:4, 10), and at ‘‘the day of judgment and 
perdition of ungodly men’’ (vy. 7). 

2. Extent of the Destruction of the Earth—The earth is to be 
‘‘burned up.’’ But this is not saying the matter of which it is 
composed shall cease to exist. Combustion produces a chemical 
change in matter, but the matter continues to exist in the form 
of ashes and gases. When the earth was formerly destroyed by 
water its materials did not cease to exist. It may be reasoned 
by analogy that. its destruction by fire, which is described as an 
analogous event, does not mean annihilation, The earth and 
heavens are to ‘‘pass away.’’ This expression might be under- 


650 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


stood to mean annihilation, but not necessarily. Many material 
things are said to pass away that are only destroyed as to their 
physical or chemical form. There is no proof either in the 
Seriptures or in experience that any substance which God 
created has ever been annihilated. 

However, the Scriptures may without violence be interpreted 
to mean that the earth will be annihilated. If the natural law 
of the indestructibility of matter be appealed to, it may be re- 
plied that in the destruction of the earth natural law will be 
transcended. Certainly he who created matter is well able to 
cause it to cease to exist if he so chooses. Whether the destruction 
of the earth is an annihilation of its substance or only a destruc- 
tion of its orderly forms is probably not revealed and is there- 
fore unknowable by us. Not a few of the church fathers and 
reformers did not understand the destruction of the earth to 
mean the annihilation of its matter. 

Another question in connection with the extent of the de- 
struction to follow the judgment is whether the whole material 
universe will pass away. The heaven and the earth are to pass 
away. The term ‘‘heaven’’ may include the material universe 
or it may include merely what pertains to our earth. With the 
geocentric view of the universe anciently held, the expression 
would most naturally be understood to include all the heavenly 
bodies. But with the modern view of the universe in, which the 
earth forms but a mere speck, it is more consistent to refer the 
destruction to the earth and what relates to it only. Thought- 
ful minds find difficulty in believing the whole vast physical 
universe was created merely to furnish a place for man’s pro- 
bation, and that when that short period is ended it will all be 
destroyed. 

Evidently we do well not to be very dogmatic concerning 
an event for the knowledge of which we are entirely dependent 
upon Seripture prophecy, and which, as already shown, is not in- 
tended to give full information as to the nature of events. The 
past fulfilments of Scripture prophecies have often been very 
different from what men were led to expect by a literal inter- 
pretation. In other instances such prophecies have been literally 
fulfilled in minute detail. Doubtless we can not be certain ag to 
the details of the destruction of the earth, but of the reality of 
the event there need be no question. 


CHAPTER IV 
THE FINAL DISPENSATION 


The logical culmination of true Christian theology is the doc- 
trine of future retribution. Future punishment of the wicked 
and reward of the righteous are implied in many of the doctrinal 
truths already discussed. They are implied in the justice of 
God, the moral nature of man, his probation, the atonement of 
Christ, the offer of salvation, the duty of the church to propa- 
gate the gospel, future existence, the second coming of Christ, 
and the final judgment. If all these are true, the doctrine of 
future reward and punishment must be true. But more direct 
and specific evidences of future retribution are available. 

I. Future Punishment 

1. Proofs of Future Punishment.—To shrink from the idea of 
future punishment because of its fearful character is human. 
But to deny the reality of future punishment because of the 
awfulness is as unreasonable ag to shut one’s eyes to the realities 
of sin, oppression, pain, and misery of this world because of 
their terribleness. The moral excellence of men here requires 
that they have in view the solemn truth of punishment here- 
after. The doctrine of future punishment is supported by both 
Seriptural and rational proofs. 

The Scriptures represent the punishment of the wicked as 
taking place after the close of this life. ‘‘The rich man also 
died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in 
torments’’ (Luke 16:22, 23). The wicked will be punished 
when Christ comes again. ‘‘For the Son of man shall come in 
the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall re- 
ward every man according to his works’’ (Matt. 16:27). ‘‘The 
Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 
in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, 
and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who 
shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the pres- 
ence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; when he 
shall come to be glorified in his saints’’ (2 Thess. 1: 7-10). The 
future punishment of the wicked will be coincident with the 
blessedness of the righteous. 

The wicked will be punished after the general resurrection. 


‘‘And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall 
651 


652 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and ever- 
lasting contempt’’ (Dan. 12:2), ‘‘The hour is coming, in the 
which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall 
come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of 
life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of 
damnation’’ (John 5: 28, 29). 

The wicked will be punished after the final judgment. ‘‘ Then 
shall he say unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye 
cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and_ his 
angels’’(Matt. 25:41). ‘‘And these shall go away into ever- 
lasting punishment’’ (v. 46). ‘‘For as many as have sinned 
without the law shall perish without law ... in the day when 
God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according 
to my gospel’’ (Rom. 2:12, 16). The wicked will be punished 
after the destruction of the earth. ‘‘The harvest is the end of 
the world; and the reapers are the angels... . The Son of man 
shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his 
kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and 
shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and 
enashing of teeth’’ (Matt. 13: 39-42). ‘‘But the heavens and 
the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, 
reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of 
ungodly men’’ (2 Pet. 3:7). 

Reason also furnishes conclusive evidence that punishment 
awaits the wicked beyond this life, for which reason not un- 
commonly have non-Christian religions strongly supported the 
doctrine of future punishment. Government implies law, and 
law implies the infliction of penalty for its violation. The truth 
of a divine moral government is shown by man’s inherent sense 
of moral obligation. The fact of divine government, in the light 
of God’s perfect holiness, implies, not only an exact rewarding 
of righteousness, but also a punishment of sin in exact propor- 
- tion to the degree of its sinfulness. If justice igs not thus per- 
fectly executed in the world, then it must be done in the future 
life. 

That men are not rewarded or punished in this life accord- 
ing to their deserts must be evident to any observing mind. 
Frequently the righteous spend their lives in suffering and pov- 
erty while the wicked man lives and dies in health and prosper- 


THE FINAL DISPENSATION 653 


ity. Punishment may be suffered only in three modes—in body, 
-in mind, and in estate. 

As to physical suffering, it is usually of the nature of legal 
penalties or by visitation of God. Civil government often fails 
for various reasons to bring the violator of its laws to justice. 
Because of human limitations its inflictions are not always ae- 
cording to exact justice. Innocent men are sometimes im- 
prisoned or executed. Many sins, such as blasphemy, are of 
such a nature that their perpetrators are not amenable to the 
civil law and therefore are not punished by it. Divinely in- 
flicted physical suffering is evidently many times not of a penal 
nature, and certainly men are not diseased or injured physically 
according to their deserts. Some of the most godly persons are 
diseased and are caused to sutfer greatly throughout life. Men’s 
moral character can not be known by the state of their physical 
health. Very wicked men sometimes live many years, without 
ever knowing disease or physical pain. 

Doubtless sin brings a measure of mental suffering in this 
life, but often that is not in proportion to the degree of guilt. 
One person may feel greater remorse because of stealing’ a dime 
than would the train-robber who steals a million dollars and 
kills the train crew. Present remorse for sin can not be the full 
measure, nor even any considerable part, of the just penalty for 
sin. This is evident from the fact that a man with a tender 
conscience who commits but one sin feels great remorse, while 
another whose conscience is hardened persists in the most heinous 
sins throughout life with little if any feeling of remorse. Usual- 
ly the more one sins the less remorse he feels. 

Neither can men’s characters be known by the amount of 
their earthly possessions. It is true poverty may sometimes over- 
take one as a consequence of one’s sins. But frequently evil 
men prosper in material possessions as did Dives, while the right- 
eous, like the beggar Lazarus, live and die in poverty. Doubt- 
less exact justice is not meted out to individuals according to 
their deserts in this world. To reward and punish men here in 
such a sense that every sin would immediately bring the exact 
reward or punishment it deserves would be incongruous with 
present probation and subversive of it in a considerable mea- 
sure. Because full and exact justice is not executed in this life, 


654 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


the truth of the perfect divine government requires the punish- 
ment of sin hereafter. 

2. Nature of Future Punishment.—The future punishments of 
the wicked are represented ag being by ‘‘everlasting fire’’ (Matt. 
25:41), by their being cast into a lake of ‘‘fire and brimstone’’ 
(Rev. 21:8) or a ‘‘furnace of fire’’ (Matt. 18:42), into ‘‘outer 
darkness’’ (Matt. 8:12), or into ‘‘blackness of darkness’’ (Jude 
13), as ‘‘no rest day nor night’’ (Rev. 14:11), as the ‘‘second 
death’’ (Rev. 21:8), and as ‘‘eternal destruction from the face 
of the Lord’’ (2 Thess. 1:9, A. S. V.). 

The question which now arises is, Are these literal descrip- 
tions indicating the actual form of punishment of the wicked or 
are they figurative? To regard them as being figurative ex- 
pressions is not to deny the reality of future punishment. There 
is no more reason to suppose the fire of hell is literal than to 
suppose heaven hag streets paved with literal gold. There ap- 
pears to be no more ground for assuming the fire of future 
punishment is literal fire than for supposing the worm which 
does not die is a literal worm. The purpose of the Scripture 
expressions is to represent the awfulness of future punishment. 
A comparison of the different representations show that they 
ean not be literal, because some of them are mutually exclusive 
of each other. Darkness and fire can not be coexistent, for the 
nature of fire is to dispel darkness; neither can that punishment 
be literal death or cessation of being and yet be ‘‘no rest.’’ The 
idea of eternal destruction is likewise not literally consistent 
with itself. 

Future punishment is to be regarded in three aspects: (1) 
the loss of infinite good; (2) the suffering naturally resulting 
from sin; and (8) positive penal infliction. The loss of good 
includes the loss of all the good things of the present life, ex- 
elusion from the presence of God and the possibility of his 
spiritual blessings now possible, the withdrawal of the Spirit of 
God, through whose agency alone salvation is possible, conse- 
quent utter reprobation and hopelessness of all good, and espe- 
cially the loss of the eternal blessedness of heaven. If future 
punishment consisted only in this loss it would be infinite. But 
it also includes positive suffering. The finally lost will be the 
slave of his unrestrained sinful passions, will be tormented by 
the malignity and selfishness of evil associates totally abandoned 


THE FINAL DISPENSATION 655 


to wickedness, will suffer the remorse of a guilty conscience, and 
will be tormented by endless despair. 

Not a few persons assume that the natural consequence of 
sin is the full measure of future punishment. Such a view might 
be harmonized with the Scriptures, but it seems more in harmony 
with the representations of that punishment as set forth in the 
Seriptures to regard it as including positive penal inflictions 
also. Whatever these are they are not physical torments, for 
the fire of hell is prepared for the punishment of the devil and 
his angels, who have no physical bodies. This is another reason 
why it can not be literal fire. Doubtless we can not know the 
exact nature of the positive future punishment for sin; there- 
fore should not be dogmatic, but should leave it to be determined 
by a just God at the proper time. The repulsive overstatements 
of Christian apologists have too often resulted in the revulsion 
of many from the whole idea of future punishment. 

Future punishment, though infinite in duration, is not in- 
finite in degree nor is it infinite at any particular time. End- 
lessness of future punishment does not in any sense require that 
it be infinite in intensity, as the endlessness of the line of the 
circumference of a circle does not mean it ia infinite in breadth. 
That future punishment is not infinite in intensity is certain 
from the Scriptural teaching of degrees of punishment. The 
degree of one’s guilt is determinative of the degree of one’s 
punishment. Likewise the degree of the individual’s guilt is 
determined by the degree of his understanding of the divine 
requirements. ‘‘That servant, which knew his lord’s will, and 
prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be 
beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did com- 
mit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes’’ 
(Luke 12:47, 48). Jesus said of Capernaum, ‘‘It shall be more 
tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than 
for thee’’ (Matt. 11: 24). 

Future punishment will consist in conscious suffering, not 
in annihilation. We have previously shown that immortality is 
not a gift of divine grace through Christ, and conditional on 
faith in him, therefore peculiar to believers. This theory of 
conditional immortality looks for support to those texts of Serip- 
ture which represent future punishment as eternal death and 
everlasting destruction. These texts have already been explained 


656 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


to mean, not cessation of conscious being, but rather a wretched 
and impoverished state of being. The idea of annihilation of: 
the wicked at death is incompatible with that of everlasting pun- 
ishment and especially with those references to the worm that 
‘*dieth not’’ and the smoke of torment ascending forever. The 
theory of the extinction of being as constituting the future pun- 
ishment of the wicked is excluded by the truth of degrees of 
punishment. If punishment were annihilation at death all 
would suffer alike and degrees of suffering would be excluded. 

According to one form of the annihilation theory, the powers 
of the wicked are gradually weakened because of sin until they 
finally cease to be. This assumes that sin is necessarily destruc- 
tive of intellectual powers, which is not according to experi- 
ence. Men’s moral characters can not be judged by the degree 
of their intellectuality. Some of the world’s brightest intellects 
have led vicious lives. Also if this theory were true then the 
ereater one’s sin the quicker he would be freed from punish- 
ment, 

Another view of annihilation assumes that the wicked will 
not be annihilated at death, but will first suffer according to 
their deserts and then be annihilated. In separating the punish- 
ment from annihilation this theory denies endless punishment 
and therefore is unscriptural. 

3. Place of Future Punishment.—The Scriptures represent the 
future punishment of the wicked as being in a place which is 
called ‘‘hell’’ in the common English Bible. In the Revised 
Version the original Hebrew word sheol and the Greek terms 
adns (hades) and yé-evva (gehenna) are usually retained either 
in the text or the margin. The theory that these terms refer 
merely to the grave or to the valley of the Son of Hinnom out- 
side Jerusalem is too unscholarly to deserve any extended 
notice or serious refutation. A casual reading of the Scriptures 
affords abundant disproof of it. The inspired writers employed 
these figures and such words as their language afforded to 
designate the place of the eternal abode of the wicked. 

Though spirits are immaterial, they are capable of localiza- 
tion. Human spirits in this life are localized in physical bodies. 
Demon: spirits are likewise localized in the bodies of demoniacs. 
Even disembodied spirits must dwell in some place. As cer- 
tainly as the righteous will enjoy blessedness in a place called 


THE FINAL DISPENSATION 657 


heaven, so the wicked will be punished in a place we call hell. 
Doubtless hell is a condition, but it is also a place. The wicked 
shall be turned or cast into it (Psa. 9:17; Matt. 10:28; Mark 
9:45), 

Hell as a place must correspond to the condition of those who 
go there. It is represented as being a place of fire, of outer 
darkness, and an abyss, but as already shown, these are but 
figures. We can not look beyond the figures by which inspira- 
tion has been pleased to represent it to us. To attempt a de- 
scription of its actual nature would be but speculation. Yet it 
is certainly a literal place as is heaven. 

As to its location we are not informed by the Scriptures and 
ean not know otherwise. The Bible represents heaven as being 
up and hell as being down. That heaven is away from this 
earth is evident from the fact that Jesus went up or away from 
it at the ascension. Hell is doubtless best thought of as away 
from the earth. It is represented by the Scriptures ag being 
down, in accommodation to the ancient theory that the earth is 
flat and in conformity with the prevalent Jewish and pagan 
eonceptions of the location of the place of the spirits of the 
dead. 

3. Duration of Future Punishment.—The duration of the pun- 
ishment of the wicked is represented in the Scriptures by the 
expressions ‘‘everlasting punishment’’ (Matt. 25:46), ‘‘ever- 
lasting fire’ (v. 41), and ‘‘everlasting destruction’’ (2 Thess. 
1:9). The words aiwv (aion) and aiwvios (aionios) rendered 
‘“‘everlasting’’ in these texts and eternal elsewhere are some- 
times said not to mean endless duration. We allow they are 
sometimes used to express merely a very long period, or the 
greatest duration possible to the subject to which they are ap- 
plied. But though they do not etymologically necessitate end- 
less duration, yet this is their true sense, and so are they used 
in the Scriptures. Because they express the longest possible 
duration of the subject to which they are applied, when they 
are applied to the immortal soul they mean endless duration. 
No words afforded by the Greek language express the idea of 
endless duration when applied to the punishment of the wicked 
if these do not. They are used to express the endless duration 
of God (1 Tim. 1:17), of Christ (Heb. 13:8), and of the Holy 
Spirit (Heb. 9:14). Doubtless in these connections they are 


658 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


properly understood to mean eternal duration. They are also 
employed to express the duration of the future blessedness of the 
righteous. If the happiness in the future life is endless the 
punishment of sinners there is also of endless duration. 

Other Biblical statements also clearly imply eternal punish- 
ment for the wicked. The fire of hell is described as ‘‘unquench- 
able’’ (Luke 3:17), and as ‘‘the fire that never shall be 
quenched’’ (Mark 9:45). These statements can only mean that 
the punishment of the wicked never ends. This is certain from 
the added expression ‘‘where their worm dieth not’’ (v. 48). 
The endlessness of future punishment is also implied in the state- 
ment of Jesus that between the rich man and Lazarus was fixed 
an impassable gulf. Also it is implied in the teaching that it 
had been better for the sinner if he had never been born. If 
after a period of suffering, however long, an eternity of blessed- 
ness awaits the wicked, then their being born is, after all, a 
blessing of inestimable value. 

That the Seriptures teach endless punishment of the wicked 
is evinced by the unanimity with which Christians in all ages 
have so believed. This doctrine has been stedfastly held by the 
Greek and Roman Churches and by all great historical Protes- 
tant bodies. The most notable modern theological writers unite 
in support of it. This can be accounted for only on the ground 
that the doctrine is unmistakably clear in the Scriptures. Cer- 
tainly Christians do not believe this doctrine because of any 
hard-heartedness or wish that any of their fellow beings should 
so suffer. 

Men shrink from the idea of eternal punishment. That gen- 
erous souls should do so is but natural. It is not evidence that 
they love sin or are enemies of righteousness. That God has 
similar feelings seems probable from the many expressions of 
yearning, entreaty, and warning which indicate his reluctance 
to punish sinners. But such feelings are also experienced by 
many relative to the infliction of penalty by civil or other human 
governments. If the infliction of penalty is to be determined by 
such feelings all government must be subverted. 

We who are ourselves the subjects of the divine government, 
and whose knowledge of the conditions and requirements of the 
moral universe is so limited, are not qualified to judge inde- 
pendently of the Scriptures as to what is the just penalty of 


THE FINAL DISPENSATION 659 


sin. Much of perplexity exists in regard to government in all 
its human forms. Not only is this true in determining the penal- 
ties for violation of civil law, but even in the government of a 
family of little children most parents find much perplexity rela- 
tive to punishment for wrong-doing. Surely if in these things 
government is a problem to us, we are not qualified to instruct 
God concerning the conduct of the moral universe. <A fact of 
much significance in this connection is that the Scriptures are 
thoroughly self-consistent in representing both the sacrifice of 
Christ in atonement for sin and the future punishment for sin 
from which that sacrifice is intended to save as being equally 
infinite. According to both, God regards sin as being of infinite 
demerit. 

Possibly a rational justification of eternal punishment is im- 
possible because of the limitations of human knowledge. Thomas 
Aquinas and some others have reasoned that because sin is com- 
mitted against an infinite being, therefore it must be of infinite 
demerit. In our opinion this theory fails of its purpose because 
it equalizes all sins, while the Scriptures make the degree of 
their sinfulness to depend upon the degree of the understand- 
ing of the will of God by him who sins. The correct measure of 
sin is subjective, not external. Instead of the principle of 
Aquinas here stated, we might as well reason that because he 
who sins is finite, therefore no sin he may commit can have more 
than finite demerit. 

Again it is reasoned that the atonement is limited to this 
life; therefore because salvation is not offered in the future 
life, punishment must be endless. It might as well be reasoned 
that because no salvation from the penalty of the civil law is 
offered to the bank-robber, he must therefore be punished for- 
ever in this world. Neither the bank-robber in this world nor 
the sinner in the future life may be justly punished except as 
he has demerit. The just duration of punishment is not deter- 
mined by the offer of grace, but by the extent of one’s guilt. 
The explanation here suggested in Justification of endless pun- 
ishment fails to explain. 

A more satisfactory rational justification of eternal punish- 
ment is that the moral responsibility of men does not end with 
this life, but that they become confirmed in wickedness, there- 
fore sin eternally, and consequently deserve to be punished 


660 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


eternally. This makes future punishment to be, not for the sins 
of this life merely, but for future sinning also. The sins of the 
present life are the ground only for the beginning of the end- 
less punishment of the future. It is true that the Scriptures do 
not represent future punishment as being for other than the sins 
of this life. This may be due, however, to the practical aim of 
the Scriptures to warn men against persisting in sin here. Yet 
no rational evidence exists that the lost are morally responsible 
and still that all are confirmed in sinning so they will always 
continue to sin. If, however, it be assumed that they are so con- 
ditioned that they can not cease from sin because of a lack of 
power, then their sinning is of necessity and ceases to have 
demerit. : 

Like some other great Christian truths, everlasting punish- 
ment, though not contradictory to reason, can not be proved by 
reason. But, as already shown, it is unmistakably a truth of 
the Scriptures, and because of this is consistently believed by 
Christians. A proper preaching of this doctrine is not a hin- 
drance to the progress of Christianity, but is important as a 
warning to men. Though not the highest motive for the renun- 
ciation of sin, yet the fear of punishment is a proper motive, 
and multitudes who have forsaken sin for this reason have later 
come to serve God because of supreme love to him. A hard, 
feelingless preaching of everlasting torment may repel sinners, 
but a solemn warning against it by one moved by divine love 
has been and still is effective in awakening and saving men. No 
exaggeration of physical torments is to be favored, yet the doc- 
trine may properly be presented in Biblical figures even with- 
out ordinarily stopping to explain they are such. 


Il. Future Blessedness 


1. The Truth of Future Blessedness—A happy existence 
awaits the righteous beyond this life as surely as punishment 
awaits the wicked. This is a truth of both the Scriptures and 
reason. In the Scriptures it is represented as being ‘‘eternal 
life’? (Matt. 25:46), an ‘‘eternal weight of glory’’ (2 Cor. 4: 
17), knowledge (1 Cor. 13: 8-10), worship (Rev. 19:1), asso- 
ciation with holy men and angels (Heb. 12:23), and as com- 
munion with God (Rev. 21:3). Future reward is constantly 
represented in the Bible as the portion of those who faithfully 


THE FINAL DISPENSATION 661 


endure present testing. From the divine justice, goodness, and 
fatherhood we properly reason that rewards await the righteous. 
The righteous do not get just reward of their goodness here, 
but many of them suffer much instead while spending their lives 
for the glory of God and the benefit of their fellow men. Surely 
God will not leave-such goodness unrewarded. Future reward 
for righteousness is impled in the idea of present probation. 
Though the righteous deserve a measure of reward, yet their 
blessedness hereafter is to be thought of as being largely through 
God’s grace through Christ. 

2. The Place of Future Blessedness.—Future blessedness igs to 
be experienced in heaven. Heaven is certainly a condition, but 
it is also a place. It is a material place, for only a material 
place may be the abode of material bodies, which the resurrected 
bodies of the righteous have been already shown to be. Also 
the resurrected body of Jesus which ascended to heaven was a 
material body. The heaven in which these beings with material 
_ bodies dwell can not be merely infinite space. The righteous 
are not to spend eternity in solitude, but will be associated to- 
gvether and be with God and the angels. To affirm that heaven 
is a material place is not, however, to say it is gross material 
such aS we now know subject to change and disintegration. It 
may be of glorified, incorruptible material similar in nature to 
that of our resurrected bodies. But even disembodied spirits 
may be localized. In this life men’s spirits are localized in their 
bodies. Demon spirits and the Holy Spirit are sometimes so 
localized. The spirit of the dying thief on the cross Jesus said 
was to go to paradise. The angels and God are localized, in 
that heaven is their abode. The Scriptures represent heaven as 
a place under the figures of a house, a mansion, a city, and a 
new earth. 

We can not know the location of heaven, except that it is 
somewhere away from this earth. Not a few have assumed that 
it will be located on this earth. Such suppose the new heavens 
and new earth will be constructed from the materials of this 
earth after its future destruction. Such a view can not be sup- 
ported by the Scriptures. They rather represent it as now exist- 
ing elsewhere. God and the angels now dwell there. Jesus as- 
cended to heaven in the sight of his apostles, and ‘‘gazing up- 
ward,’’ they watched him go. The righteous ‘‘depart’’ to be 


662 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


with Christ. When Jesus wag about to go to heaven he told his 
disciples he was going away to prepare a place for them and 
that he would come again and receive them to that place, that 
they might be with him. The place is to be prepared before 
Christ comes again; therefore this earth can not be that place. 

3. The Nature of Future Blessedness.—The - happiness of the 
righteous in heaven will consist in various elements. (1) They 
will be secure from the possibility of being forever lost. (2) They 
will be free forever from all earthly sorrow and pain. ‘‘God 
shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be 
no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be 
any more pain’’ (Rev. 21:4). They shall no longer be tempted 
by sin, nor troubled by sinful «surroundings. (3) They shall 
then know God as they are now known of him. ‘‘They shall see 
his face,’’ and ‘‘see him as he is.’’ If present experiences of the 
slory and love of God give joy unspeakable and full of glory, 
what must the bliss of heaven be! If here where they ‘‘see 
through a glass darkly,’’ communion with God is indescribably 
satisfying, what ‘‘bliss beyond compare’’ will the joys of heaven 
be when they abide forever in God’s holy presence! They shall 
then praise and worship him perfectly. (4) Also the righteous 
shall there have happy intercourse and joyful fellowship with 
holy angels, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and all the holy 
and truly great. If holy fellowships in this life afford great 
pleasure, eternity in such society will be heaven indeed. (5) 
Still another element of future blessedness will be the oppor- 
tunity for indefinite enlargement of all faculties. We may well 
believe the righteous will live and learn forever there. 

What all the other elements of future blessedness will con- 
sist of we may not know, but doubtless the beauty of the place 
will add much to it. The beauty of heaven is represented to us 
in the Scriptures in figures. The most beautiful things imagin- 
able are employed to represent it. It is represented as a beau- 
tiful garden through which flows a ‘‘pure river of water of 
life, clear as crystal.’’ On each side of the river grows ‘‘the 
tree of life’’ bearing twelve kinds of fruit each month. Heaven 
is also represented as being a beautiful house, a mansion which 
Jesus has gone to prepare and in which he will dwell with his 
people. It is also represented as a wonderful city, walled ac- 
cording to the ideal of cities anciently, with foundations of the 


THE FINAL DISPENSATION 663 


most precious stones, walls of jasper, and gates of pearl, while 
the streets and city are of ‘‘pure gold, like unto clear glass.’’ 
Heaven is also represented as ‘‘new heavens and a new earth, 
wherein dwelleth righteousness’’ (2 Pet. 3:13). 

What the reality is which these wonderful figures represent 
is probably beyond the capacity of our finite minds to compre- 
hend even if it were literally described. ‘“‘Eye hath not seen, 
nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the 
things which God hath prepared for them that love him’’ (1 
Cor. 2: 9); 


INDEX 


Page 

A 
UM aU y UT Byep de faites eben nna dee 83 
PEA] gh 1h pons d ant ihe i aa OES 432 
Advent, Christ’s second........ 633 


Alford, Dean, bishop and pres- 


LAH aly) Nee a kati dl Neh Eee RES, 525 
MEOGG OL DADTISING ...--0.socncente 562 
EOL Me Yate eres teed ok ee eee 262 
ENTE es tal aR SEO te eae AR 262 
Existence and nature of 
EG Sie eel pele sik ered, RAS 262 
Degen Wi cfg] Fe SR ga de ae eb i 264 
Pe VADE AOL SI Wixerete fect kent eo. 265 


Animistic superstition not the 
source of the idea of God.... 48 


Anointing with oil_-._............... 498 
Pe TREMLOT gD CIBIN e. ohae sk oso ose 558 
Anthropological Argument for 
TENT) || Ret ead ca te eet 65 
Argument from man’s intel- 
PEG ¢Sy Os). Cendant Naa eee 66 
Argument from man’s free- 
ARDY obs AeA ID Seah ke 67 
Argument from man’s moral 
PRET RAS ae NA ie J Ale RRO PR 67 
Argument from. man’s relig- 
POMBE MLALTILG) oo doscecee casas 68 
PR CEELOTOLO YS eater ree a tse 273 
Antichrist, no personal............ 629 
any. Of Man wet. e 274 
Antitheistic theories.................. 71 
PeROHORATIANS .22 0 os 367 
Apologetics, Christian................ 93 
Definition of ...... tts $l ta Eee el 93 
ATO EANC GOL noes kos 93 
ISAs yO Loess te, Ske ee 96 
Present-day task of...........-.--- 96 
Nature and classification of 
BMA ONCOS. 0.2 88.2052). ces 97 
Apostasy and restoration of 
“ATED CUATEIC A cults Sp ile ae aoa ne 536 
Two aspects of apostasy pre- 
ELE Ny kas Bec ee eee oie 536 


Lutheran reformation partial 544 
A partial return to the Bible 544 
Human ecclesiasticism con- 


POG 3 ee ae 545 
Protestant divisions .............. 546 
A complete restoration .......... 549 


A priori argument for theism.... 69 
Arione 


Arminian theory of sin............ 341 
Assurance of salvation............ 433 
Fact of assurance .............-... 433 
Nature of assurance................ 434 
Witness of God’s Spirit...... 435 


Page 
Witness of our spirits............ 437 
Assurance in relation to 
CLOT Leet cass tt eee 438 
Athanasian screed... oc 209 
MACH AT ASEM fo 2enc ee ee 209 
ACILGTSYN beret en ian toe ee Ze 
Sense OT er aise ct ane Go 71 
Unreasonableness of .............. (Bi 
BOSS DUI @eGE ier os Cet 72 
Atonement of Christ..........2.: 371 
Sense of atonement. .............. 371 
Fact and doctrine of atone- 
TNE Gen enter ee eee 372 
Theories of pardon without 
APONERIONT ee ee ee 374 
Biblical statements about 
SLONEM ONG ee eee ait: 
Atonement in the Old Testa- 
ment sacrifices ................. 387 
Elements in the doctrine of 
ALONGMON Gases ele eee 390 
Attriputes of. Gods sce ee 179 
Nature and elassification of 
God’s: attributes \i2..-4.000... 181 
Relation of God’s attributes 
to-his' essenéesan ie 182 
Classes of attributes................ 183 
Augustinian theory of sin........ 340 
Augustine, foot-washing .......... 583 
B 
Baptist sn Water eee cece seres cee 557 
Mode of baptizing..._............. 557 
The original word 4... 558 
Prepositions used with ‘‘ bap- 
TAZ he eer eee cs sh oc era 559 
Circumstances for baptizing 560 
History of the: mode.-2-2.0 2. 563 
Practise of the Eastern 
GHUTCN Ca ee 565 


Evidence of the baptisteries 565 
Objections to immersion 


CONSIDOT CO. ose seen nce nese ceeecenen 565 
Sprinkling and pouring.......... 567 
Trine immersion ...........-....--. 569 
Subjects for baptism.............. 570 
Purpose of baptism.................- 574 
Essentials of baptism.............. 575 


Baptism with the Holy Spirit 466 
Expressions representative of 

pA ikl Ayia Noel erect 466 

A definite experience............ 467 

Distinct from regeneration.. 468 
Results of the baptism with 

VATE) af 8 eh yp ade Ae map a EB 470 


665 


666 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Page 

One baptism but many fill- 
SEN Press ot i ic nsec ure 471 
Benefits of the atonement........ 393 
Unconditional benefits -......... 393 
Conditional benefits .............- 398 
Biblical» theology sa. ccnscsonuey 27 
SL GE NYG eae tg css in leer 423 
RIBILODS (sete cetretidid = cscs oy oneenes 523 
Blessedness, Future ..............-.---- 660 


Truth of future blessedness 660 
Place of future blessedness.. 661 
Nature of future blessedness 662 


Body, Resurrection of the.......... 639 
Borg pean Gre ec te eho nas 423 
Hes geibateye ats eth eam easy e le Y 564 
EU GOT Y a) Ces OE ores a te caches 96 

C 
Calvinistic predestination ........ 406 
SOTISA ELON ELIE SiMe gee esc an ate 53 
Chaleedon, Creed of:....—........- 307 


Chalmers, theory of creation.... 238 


Charismatand: 2p ete 473 
CUPISG VR VATIAGY OL ne. ccemars so zckees 215 
Called God taste ree ees 216 
Called Jehovah: 7... 02022 0. 218 
PGE OTD Yea ce uate ae mame Ua See 219 
ADNTOUES DFG fie mectivet es eeeee inte fan od 220 
Omnipresent -.......----eccseoneees--- 220 
Omnisezenty eee tel 221 
Omnipotent). aes tee ae 222 
Creator i Aras eonel ee via ies 222 
eo UGC HOR TILED see ee nee ee 223 
Worship accepted by him...... 223 
Christ, 'Omicee of. tae 371 
Christ; Person cote: ah te 355 
Doctrine of Christ’s person.... 355 
Two natures in Christ............ 358 
Two natures in one person.... 362 
Christological errors ............ 366 
Christ, Predictions concerning.. 137 
Christian Evidences ................- 93 
Nature and classification...... 97 


Probable not demonstrative 97 
Rational and authenticating 98 


Main classessorvi. A onae aes 98 
Presumptive evidences ........ 99 
Christological errors................- 366 
CGUAFIBEOLOIY wet e atthe aes 355 
Factors of the doctrine........ 356 
Creedalk statements ............-... 356 
Christ’s second advent.............. 633 
COURULT EN /Pen MBE her sas eect ene sera cat 507 
Organization of the Church 507 
Manse OL tue terms cu. 507 
Universal church .................. 508 
TGC GUIERTD. Vass tenes coe Seckceks dened 509 


Relation to God’s kingdom.. 509 
Time of the church’s organ- 


Page 

SEP GLOOMY is) ods. hae eee 510 
Figures representing the 

BELO Rua name nee Dinh. 2c) 513 


Nature of its organization.... 513 
Different forms of church or- 


VANIZAUON ©, 1.2 tee 513 
The church divinely organ- 
HEAT Bp bb hind ics) MBAS ae ales ES 514 
Human agencies in its organ- 
IRR TLON Cees ie eee 516 
Organization of operative 
AREN CIOS \ A eee 518 
Church, Government of the.. 521 
Officers of the church............ 521 
Divine and human aspects of 
church government ............ 528 
Nature of ministerial au- 
GHOPLtY cee 530 
Number and choice of church 
DUIGErS don eee . §31 
Clarke, W. N., Christ’s second 
COTTE sae otal aa ee 635 
Detinition yo, Coder ee 182 
Coleman, baptism.................-...... 565 
Collateral evidences of Chris. 
tianity- ee ee eee 153 
Effects of Christianity on 
society 252 SS eee 160 
Rapid spread of Christianity 163 
Communion Supper ............--..---- 576 
Conditional benefits of the 
ALON OMON bien hs ake ceeeeen see 398 
Salvation from sin econdi- 
TlONnAl VA ee 398 
Special providence through 
Prayer ..o. 7h ee 400 
Future blessedness .............----- 400 
Conditionality of salvation...... 398 


Conn on embryology and evo- 


AUG T ON Ae eco cteck oes pete 250 
On origin of species............... 250 
CONSCIENCE (25... nnrs tea edertieteaee 300 
Discriminating function ...... 301 
Impulsive power ....-.......-..0-s 302 
Retributive aspect. ................ 304 
Constantinopolitan Creed ........ 229 
Consubstantiation -..............----. 580 
Conybeare and Howson, bishops 
and ‘presbyters 3 ee 525 
Cope, E. D., on evolution........ 244 
Cosmological argument for 
PNGISI tees eoree seek eee 52 
Council of Constantinople......... . 209 
Create, Sense of the term.......... 233 
Creation and evolution.............. 244 
Creation, God’s work in............ 231 
Matter created out of noth- 
14 f ieieba all Ae ainmatetetcen Pt EE 232 


INDEX 


Page 
Creative work not necessary 
BA) AO Madeira betas cance co cue stainge 234 
The Genesis record historical 235 
Creative days and geologic 
poet Cee k yh ok oh, BOM REE ER, y 237 
Agreement of Moses and 
BLOTS OM eet cat feos ost eenece bate 241 
Creationism, Theory of.............. 291 
Credibility of the New Testa- 
TOI Y prise sdk ae 113 
Aceepted by those familiar 
with the events..:.........-.5.. 114 
Writers possessed requisites 
TOTP EPOOI DU eg ott cen 115 
Creedal: statements about 
BA hig foc ae Rp yep ode op mean 356 
D 
Dana on the order of creation 
A A Nn Pe 242, 243 
CES COLL USORY (ace iearneseet tetas de 86 
Dprwite Guar iGs 80. vs o2 oi. 78 
On origin of species................ 250 
DVOUG DLS pest ata. seats shatvaceteersesdaotense 526 
DEAE Nene AL beye font ee, 595 
Definition of theology................ 125 
ULV eet p eG Ge RMR Abies Mae The Fe 263 
DISTRO TID LOU 0) <2. ntsn tir naineabtnne nanos 265 
Demon possession .........-.-----.---+-<- 268 
PR SC EEITT b SU SMORERER ib 2 4 MARTE Mlle 265 
WE aU EY cn MARIE AES Ol de aed ae 265 
Depravity, a ground for a two- 
POld ACOA NIN 9 Pee oso. s reeds seen 449 
Depravity in the regenerated 450 
Depravity . Native o.27.4.1-2 326 
Derangement of the moral 
MULES Su i Ape hapncuitise-sencickeots 327 
Loss of the Holy Spirit.......... 330 
PUR SIVE UO! SUID) too ren coe mnt oe 330 
Extent of native depravity 331 
Question of total depravity... 331 
Degree of depravity.............--. 332 
Proofs of native depravity.. 333 
Depravity of the race................ 317 
Derangement of the moral na- 
ESC ih Ae Re Vey RPC RE ER aN 327 
Design argument for theism.... 56 
Direc hiOne tOre st eee 63 
Design nature |. eet 59 
DATO BSL Y (stocks nesee certs utente toon 283 
Dispensation, pTLA: W Mippapiediobones As, he 651 
Divine physical healing........... 488 
Divine revelation necessary.... 99 
As standard of right.............. 99 
Wor pearoOn OL) SiN ee 100 
To understand providence 
BMG OVA VO Ed pen eee peace os ncdernas en 101 
DOPV STURT INTE ibe eco cos 3 sete 205 
Divininy col, Cnvristes 27.5 as 215 


667 
Page 
Divine? titloaihss..o.rigcess setae 216 
Divine attributes .................. 219 
Divino workey ie aie eke 222 
Worship accorded to Christ.. 223 
Divinity of the Holy Spirit...... 227 
Doctrines Perlatty st... ot usm 141 
Dogmatic theology ...........-...-..- 26 
Duality of human nature.......... 283 
Harth, Destruction of the.......... 648 
Extent of the destruction of 
Th 6 ORT GU Ge Week ica bea es 649 
EU DIONECO Rr ese ug 08 ON BL foes 366 
Ecclesiasticism, Human ............ 554 
TRB ETORIO LOD Ve by tcateat arent csaseseon oleae 507 


Elders, Plurality of, in local 
AREY coy s bee wy eer C TTI 2A OATES As lbh dssale 
Election 


Elements of human nature........ 283 
Dual constitution of man........283 
Theory of trichotomy............ 285 
How man is superior to the 

DEED ON Gectereee se ee a ec eee 288 

Bn diorei ng: worlds. fee) 648 

UsiFegt-g lari pedcaiben, wader eh aR pages naa 86 


Erroneous sources of theology 32 
Errors, Alleged in the Bible.... 


EARUOTIG AL eee ee 173 
SCENE HG yee eee arene 174 
BW Keg A ote St aie ROSE EEE ) ele 175 
Contradictiong 20225 2.7.0. 176 
TUSCHATOLOD YY tet cert) treet nc tec nee 595 
Ethical attributes of God.......... 183 
1 ARTE: Wg fo) SU eRey Peas ht be anred Bei abemha. 576 
Baty CHiANS ee Aeron ara ee 368 
Evans, Wm., on inspiration.... 172 
Everlasting punishment............ 657 


Evidences of God’s existence... 52 
Evidences of Divine revelation 93 


Evolution, Creation and............ 244 
Evolution not God’s method 
OL GCPOAtlON wy eek a. Stic. 244 
Evolution and the Scriptures 
irreconcilable. 3 eon a 245 
Facts reconcilable with pro- 
gressive creation.................. 248 
Objections to the evolution 
AERC ky NU fp SN i bes abba ee OE 250 
Evolution hypothesis.................. 77 
Exegetical theology defined.... 25 
WIS RENO: OF OM 5-02. cad oeneeoct 43 
Rational proofs of................ 52 
Experimental evidences of 
RTISTAANIGRT aa set es) geeks 153 
Nature of experimental ev- 
LGTGGR eee eed oo 153 
Effects of Christian experi- 
ence in consciousness........ 155 


668 


Page 
Effects of Christian experi- 
ence on charactet.............-. 156 
Effeets of Christianity at 
death 
External Evidences of Chris- 


LANs oT 7 eevee See I falta es Say oy Fae 104 
F 

Fairhurst on evolution........ 246, 251 
Faith, ‘Salvation by..22-224..24 414 
Fall) of: yther race. 22s 317 
Final perseverance..............--.--.-- 412 
First cause argument for 

Thole! eae er ces eee ee 52 
Fisher, G. P., growth of the 

HiOvareh Var wea eee eee 542 

Mireelos ii erate occa sree 117 


Five points differentiating be- 
tween Calvinists and Ar- 


TULA TIS ye et sho ete 406 
Woot wast iene aoe ote cdinecakeaee 583 
History of foot-washing........ 583 
The command of Jesus........ 584 
Objections considered............ 586 
Significance of foot-washing 590 
Foreknowledge of God............ 190 
Forgiveness of Ssin.................-.. 420 
Free) Ag6ney if... ce ssrometoanee 305 
Question of freedom vital to 
DREOLO GY ia cette s cence tes 305 
Leading theories of the will.. 306 
Proofs of free will................ 308 
Objections to free will an- 
SWOT Foren el etrcrete isreadee 309 
Real froed ont... v.22: sees eee 312 
G 
General judgment......._........... , 643 


Genetic law mode theory of the 
transmission of depravity... 350 
Genuineness of the New 


deta en pesos ee eee 105 
Method of showing it............ 105 
Affirmed by the church 

Pei herwm ties has etree een 106 
Insured by carefulness in 

determining the canon........ 108 
Early adversaries never 

iPS TERY G bite & Peas cy ih spunea Latte ob pool 110 


Geologic periods, Creative days 


RAY Mipt ha oh kn nlp ance he 2 Mea RN ak tae 237 
ETO CONG DGB rssh ant sensanete eens 476 
Gifts ’ofs Lhe vopirit.... teins 473 

Nature of Charismata............ 473 

Not given alike to all............ 474 

When spiritual gifts may 

MO°PORELEO Otek ee 476 
lossolalia. tak es 477 
Cnosting cere Oe ee 366 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Page 

God, Definition of........................ 182 

A TtriDutes | Of-—...-1. cc..ecceenrnae 183 

God, Hixistence of. 43 

Origin of our idea of............ 43 
Universality of the idea of 

LE 7s EME ce cain Peers Bade 2 A ss 45 


Necessity of the idea of God 47 
Bible assumes the existence 


Government, Divine, of the 


WOOP ee ee cee . 255 
Government of the church........ 521 
H 
Haeckel of 21 0.8 secbre eae 83, 84 
Hagenbach, baptism.................... 564 

._ Hamilton on the knowledge of 
God pee ee ee ee 179 
Hands; Laying’ ion of) 2a 499 
Healing, Divine physical........ 488 
Fact of divine healing........ 488 
Post apostolic healing............ 489 
A present reality........2.28 490 
Reasonableness of divine 
healing oC eee 491 
Nature of divine healing........ 494 
Conditions for healing........ 498 
Anointing with oil.............. 499 
Attitude toward human 
remedies (ii) ie eee 500 
Objections to divine healing 502 
Heart, Newt ote see 425 
Heaven yes. coe. oS eee 661 
Hellcat tsk 2 ee 656 
Historical theology defined... 25 
Hodge, definition of God........ 182 
Early chureh creeds..........-..... 210 
Tnspiration( 220.) 170 
Representativism -......-..-....... 347 
Holiness of | life 34 2 eee 440 
Holy Spiritus a eee 225 
Personality | of 225 ee 225 
Divinity | 0f/2 4h eee 227 
Procession of: Ar gh tos eee 228 
Human Conditions for 
Salvation|.225 cc ssot ee 414 
Path ing Christe... een 414 
Repentancé Se eee 416 
Obedience ¢s.228 ge ee oe 417 
Human nature argument for 
TROISTIL Ot i Seve eae 65 
Hume’s argument against 
nliracles (Pat ee fot. bee 119 
Huxley, Thomas 22) ee 83, 84 
I 
Immersion is baptism................ 557 
Immortality, Question of........ 293 


Man’s body created mortal.. 293 


INDEX 


Page 

The Soul is immortal............ 295 
Immortality of the soul............ 595 
TPA GLO TIL PUOOL Beg neces soca 595 


Teaching of the Scriptures.. 598 
Theory of conditional im- 


WBTea liye oc eer 601 
TRBAPNAEION, (LIL VING--...4-210c8ocsene 359 
TRUE TAT tege DEGTFIAGIN: seen ak eh ede an 571 
Inspiration of the Seriptures.. 167 

Bacteand: Mature... ees 167 
Proof of inspiration................ 167 
Theories of inspiration........ 167 
True nature of inspiration.... 169 
Objections to inspiration...... 172 
Integrity of the New Testa- 
VRE CETA Eco 7) aa, Coe Ramaannege pas 111 
Evidence from ancient manu- 
ale F603 Gea Sie Ss tins vt ea ne oe 111 
Corroboration of ancient ver- 
sions and quotations........ 112 
Corruption of the Scriptures 

WO UMETOSSI lose fence ett eras 113 

Intermediate state..................... 603 
Intermediate place.................. 603 
Not a state of purgatory........ 604 


Not a state of probation... 
Internal Christian evidences.... 141 


Perfect doctrines..................-- 141 
Perfect adaptation to man’s 
TVOOGA, Wooster ree eae ee eons 144 
PBr OC MNOTOIS 2 eee ee ee te 146 
Style and incidental al- 
PUSVO Seeks aie aces 147 


Intuition, the source of the 
knowledge of the Divine 


RESIS UOTIGO UE ccestestee csnea cl scnccucns eden 43 
Nature of intuitions in gen- 
lip By ett pls apa telah OR A 43 


Jewish theories of inspiration 
of the Seriptures................ 168 
Jews, their present distribution 136 
Predictions concerning the 
Us Cae fe ain Ad i eon 134 
audoment, Finale. ee 643 
Truth of a future judgment.. 643 


Nature of the final judgment 645 
Object of the final judgment 646 
Standards of the final judg- 
HENS 4 Cig DeaN a CNTs EA lat alk ee df 647 
RR ESULCALLOTI oo snes tereees tee 419 
Sense of the term................ 419 
Forgiveness and remission... 420 
Basie for justification.......... 421 
K 


Keith, Arthur, on the Dawn 
man 


669 
Kenotic Christology.............-...... 368 
Kingdom. or) Chtist-.2.40-2. 2. 612 


Nature of Christ’s kingdom.. 613 
Predictions of time of its 
Sera DliAh Mm Ont. s-c.psseee- tee co 614 
When Christ’s kingdom es- 
tablished 
Knowledge of God, Possibility 


God an object of knowledge 79 
Extent of man’s knowledge 
Bia GO ewe aerate ee 180 


L 
Languages of the Scriptures.... 149 


ES ELE SCs Gb AORN AS Nida ISA RRR oy (oi! 
TARGUS ELL rae crea nse acces 595 
Le Conte, definition of evolu- 
BLOT Geter. ed en es Ree ee 2 244 
Lidgett, J. S., the atonement.. 373 
Literary style of the Scrip- 
BUTOR Sst cee Lh ee riesee cae 149 
LOEGt Se BUD Pelee te catearisacungece 576 
Lutheran Christology.................. 368 
M 
Main divisions of theological 
OTE CCE Ea Be WAL ED ADEE GIRL CRS LE ld 25 
Man Doctrine Ot scree 273 
Man, Original state of................ 296 


Primitive man of lofty grade 296 
Constituted relatively per- 


1 21a suet ieee Pe Rare AA ab Sn 296 
Not jarnarDarians! ccf teece .. 298 
In the Divine image............ 299 

Man superior to the brute........ 288 

Man’s nature, Constituent el- 
PMENGS Ole) eae stk tecites es 293 

IM BOL TGLISIN pate ncettntentcaes atne 74 
Antitheistic character............ 74 
Fruitless attempt to account 

LOPECDOUPUU. ates 75 
Reasoning from analogy de- 

POGUE Obie es eo ates aoe 75 


Matter created out of nothing.. 232 
MeClintock and Strong, foot- 


EU EWES Ah SO SOI ARIAS GREE 584 
MeCurdy, George C., on Dawn 
rab, Bi Pyke TA AOD TER ee 88 
Mechanical dictation theory of 
ATEN WAT A LLOT Me eed oo case ae 168 
Metaphysical attributes of God 183 
LEER Ag Bt AC cates eles ge anRamint 183 
Sole ERT RDN re ed blneeein cok aok ait 184 
dU Srabsch he ted re kami; phy deem Ment eof 186 
OGGETIAD Se Hoste snes cane eases Sec das 186 
COPE BU COB i etch ones ee cere 187 
Graninresencers) 0) 8 een 189 
OMMiscieuGe eat ee ee ee 190 


670 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Page 
Method of theology.................... 34 
Mill on the knowledge of God 179 
MTT BURN weicpte sisi ap -eseomntave 608 


History of millenarianism.... 610 
Literal or figurative inter- 


Pretationi Cay Aube cia 617 
Historical interpretation........ 619 
Revelation 20:1-6.......2...0... 620 
Objections to millenarianism 624 
Premillenarian questions........ 630 

Miller, Hugh, on reconstruction 
theory of creation.................. 239 
On creation and science........ 243 


Miracles as Christian evidence 116 
Possibility and probability 


OPM MIPAGI GS ho oe pens ieeannratrs 117 
Miracles provable by testi- 
SEOTUY | eet MEAL ae ea eee seeatcese 119 


Proofs that miracles occurred 120 
Evidential value of miracles 127 


Counterfeit miracles.............. 128 
Modern miraclés.........-2.......... 128 
Mode of the transmission of 
OPTIONAL Rimi wotey ts od eet ic 339 
Theories of original sin........ 339 


Unscriptural theories of 
transmission of original 
ST Te lease eae ech ee 342 
Law of genetic transmission 349 
Mohammedan theories of the 


inspiration of the Koran.... 168 
Monistie aspects of pantheism 73 
Moral attributes of God........ 193 

POL GSe iol eek ee eke eG ees 194 

WUStIGO ste basse ctor ee ael eee 196 

das ig poems | bee ens sce Meee Bay Reel 198 

Morty 5 ais oie ee hae 202 

Hips bel RCE M ahd BA 6 RA Ratt 203 
Moral nature of man, Original 296 
Morals; Periect. eat ee 146 
Miyptieiprin. te. te ee te ee 33 

N 
Native depravity........-...--....:-: 526 
Natural inspiration theory........ 168 
Natural theology.--7.4.......3...2.. 26 
Naturalistic evolution................ 1% 
Dimeakiesiynt sc eae, 81 
Fails to account for the 
VRE Ev OHE |r uodee ening Je Memchiicedae Reve ne 81 
Fails to account for the orig- 
pas a As DORE SER I Se 83 
Fails to account for man’s 
LiL t ie ore tie fae Mi Y te tr 85 
Fails to account for the orig- 
1h a) ON TALC geee Se aantescoaes Saino 88 
Naturalistic and theistie evolu- 
sy 1 Meee ALES WE A Fee ee 79 


Nature a source of theology.... 30 


Page 
Nature, Evidenee of design in 59 
Nature and works of God........ 179 
Natures of Christ, Two............ 358 
Neanderthal skull._.................. 86 


Necessity of the idea of God... 47 


IN OStOW 1 BUN8 5 ios ce ky ase 367 
Nevius, J. L., on demon posses- 
SLO A ta deekcs eee aateteeeaes 268 
New ‘Testament........_..!. a 105 
Gentinerniess | 2.2.4 soc 105 
Catalogs of books of............ 106 
Integrity’ a. cae 111 
MAMUSCTIPES j.-2--ccsteehowe relapse a 
Versions 221k AS eee 112 
CYGULDLUT Cy 9e-3. ae a en ena 113 
Nicéa, Council. of2.22). eee 208 
Nicene: Greed. knee 208 
Officers, Classes of church........ 521 
Ordinances of the church........ 556 
Antiordinance arguments 
CONSLOCTOD eer cee cee ae 057 
Ontological Argument................ 69 
Organization of the church.... 507 
Origin of our idea of God........ 43 
Origin (of Soulsc eee 290 
Original moral nature and 
giate Pol means 0s. te eee 296 
Original righteousness................ 313 
Nature of original righteous- 
Cet fet Pea BE Aerated Wd DORA HE cn 313 
Proofs of original righteous- 
TOSS ico 000k Ea loses eee 315 
Original sin, Nature of............ 326 
Sense of original sin............ 326 
A derangement of the moral 
TALC RTS ye an esate 327 


A loss of the Holy Spirit... 330 
A bent to sin a result of 


dOpravity oe.  as 330 
Mode of transmission of 
OFIPIN AL Si terete 1. 339 
Paley; Williams 20 Sage eee 96 
Design argument for theism.. 56 
Pantheism ui St ae ee Za 
Definition. 0f.230 02a ee 73 
Monistic aspects of................ 73 
Defletts: (0fse eee er 74 
Pardon) of © singe ses 420 
Pasteur, Louis, spontaneous 
@EN STAD ere nite 85 
PIAELOTS 4 te. 0. keer est cacetecy cea Ge 523 
Pelagian theory of sin............ 339 
Pentecostal movement................ 481 
Perseveranee, Absolute final.... 412 
Person of urist.........ceee 355 


INDEX 


Page 
Personality of the Holy Spirit 225 


ibe Tey clas at 85 aaa ee et 72 
Meaning and origin of........ 72 
Different aspects of............- 73 

Possession, Devil.................-. 268 

Postmillenarianism, ................. 608 

Pouring as baptism.................... 567 

Practical theology defined........ 26 


Prayer and divine providence.. 259 


Predestisation? 2.028 s ee, 406 
The Calvinistic theory.......... 406 
BL ONS UL OTE cons ocact actin a te Sten ae 408 

Preeexistence, Theory of........ 290 

Premillenarianism, .................--- 608 

Present reformation................ »- 049 
Present tendency to unity.... 549 
Complete reformation pre- 

LD es ba RS Ae a i 551 


A return to the Scriptures 553 
Rejection of human ecclesi- 


ASU TAT 10 eh Sp eae i A, ee ae 554 
Presumptive Christian evidene- 
OB eae etd cae ives ce deonran stunner yorsarc 99 
Probability of divine revela- 
LINE) 1) SiG anes RA RN EGE en 99 
Possibility of divine revela- 
LAY ret fs aE ree is ee Sab 99 
Necessity of divine revela- 
CELTPOT, Cael aS Ee Bek 99 
Marks to be expected are 
to be found in the Scrip- 
ja a oH) BRAT Ne OR ee RE 101 
Probation, original................:.... 317 
Probation needed for moral 
excellence: s.r eanic oS 317 
Positive probationary law.... 318 
No injustice in Adam’s pro- 
DECADE hae eee ns See ati 319 


Procession of the Holy Spirit 228 

Prophecy as Christian Evidence 129 
Nature of the argument........ 129 
Objections to the argument... 132 
Predictions concerning the 


ARS TE Adie Et arche Mitek aed EAE hoes oP 134 
Predictions concerning 
EAs See RR IER AY been 137 
Protestant divisions.................. 546 
Providence, God’s work in........ 258 
Natural providence................ 254 
Supernatural providence........ 257 
Pulpit Commentary, the apos- 
TS ie Jee Ee aa od 536 
Punishment, Future................... 651 
Proofs of future punish- 
POLES I) SS ed 651 


Nature of future punishment 654 

Place of future punishment 656 

Duration of future punish- 
ment 


671 
Page 
FRU OAO TY erncit care) oan tenseteeebmtopnaise 604 
Qualifications for study of 
GROQLO DY Ei cnteutnnodeateabicteere thos 37 
R 
Rapid spread of Christianity 
at Tie aber iim ae kl ee 163 
Hindraneces to its spread........ 163 
Means employed inadequate 164 
Rapidity of its spread unpar- 

PWC UCI dla os a REG 165 
EPA LON AL BtL cee te lee eer tot 33 
Realistic mode theory of the 

transmission of depravity.... 343 
Reconciliation peta. -peees: 371 
Sense of reconciliation........ 37 
Redemption, Application of.... 393 
Unconditional benefits of the 
ARON GIMNON G - ac sccesage se tees up tetas 393 
Conditional benefits of the 

ALON GTUOTI Gs eek eects 398 

Reformation of the Sixteenth 
OT DUT yi ee tae acer iy aa ese 544 
A partial return to the Bible 544 
Human ecclesiasticism con- 

TAN CESE | Rube TEMA Mey DUR flap, aod Re 545 

Regeneration y aii. 423 
Ground of the need................ 425 
Nature and effects................ 428 
Present regeneration.............. 430 
Baptismal Reena hy Ene 430 

Religion and theology..............-. 25 

Remission of sim............:..-------- 420 

Repentance ke fms. cieedeltcnsn seas 416 

Representative mode theory of 
the transmission of depravity 347 

Resurrection, General................ 639 
Fact of a general resurrec- 

LAKES 4 Te GHAI INE EG Sh Santee eps Mo ae 639 

Nature of resurrected bodies 640 
The question of identity.... 642 

Resurrection of Christ, Proof 
GEL ROne were keen ee a: 125 

Revealed theology...................... 26 

Revelation the source of theol- 

Least” Ren oem cohol, NS By RARE ene ames 31 

Righteousness of God................ 194 

Righteousness, Original.............. 313 

Robinson, pools for baptizing.. 567 

Roman Catholic traditions........ 32 

Rutter, observance of baptism 
in third CON RUT V nthe sch tas 540 

S 

Sacrifices, Reconciliation in 

Old ptestamenter 2000S 387 


Animal sacrifices typify 
Christ 


672 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Page 
Old Testament sacrifices 

were expiatory.................... 388 
Salvation, Wrong theories of.... 374 
Impossibility of pardon........ 374 

Forgiveness by divine pre- 
TOPALIVG ute A eat ccas 375 
Pardon on repentance............ 376 
Sanctification, Entire.................. 448 
Sense of the term................ 448 


Need of a second cleansing 449 

Distinction between regen- 
eration and sanctification 453 

Proofs of a second cleansing 454 


For the converted...................- 455 
Hors thevwenurelies weer ee 456 
An entire sanctification........ 457 
Coincident with the Holy 
Spirit baptism-........... via ehh 457 
Two cleansings in types......... 458 
Nature of entire sanctifica- 
CLOT). eee ee ee eee eu A 460 
Effects of sanctification........ 461 
A, definite worlk.......---..-.2.... 462 
Attainable in this life............ 463 


Conditions for sanctification 464 
Assurance of sanctification 465 


ROULALL focst coetehe Reagescrderatec meaeertes 266 
Science, Agreement of Moses 
ERIK Wigs opie UA, Vee Ne SER re xo ak UL 241 
Scriptures, Inspiration of.......... 167 
Second cleansing...............1..-.- 449 
Second coming of Christ............ 634 
The fact of his coming........ 634 
Nature of his coming............ 634 
Time of his coming................ 637 
Signs of his coming................ 638 
Sheldon, conscience..................-- 301 
Divine omnipresence.............. 189 
Ty olition mite ee seen ee 253 
SIE r6e@dGn ba POLL cece tee 440 
Sinlessness Ot life 3. 2 r a 440 
Sense of the Scriptures........ 440 
Definitive sense of sin............ 442 
Why holy living is denied.... 444 
Objections considered............ 445 
Sin, Origin and nature of........ 319 
The first temptation............ 319 
Man’s fall and its effects...... 322 
Watuye) (of sin... 323 
Sin not a divine method........ 325 
Original sin, Nature of........ 326 
Society, Effects of Christianity 
aS NE AB ert Aas A a in Ae ed alee 160 
The Gospel promotes univer- 
sal brotherhood.................... 161 
The Gospel sanctifies domes- 
GAG TTELATIONG tate eet 162 
Socinian Christology.................. 369 
PROT SDT yr tenn ih ee ees Sat 432 


Page 

Childremmof | God-t2-2<2aibore 432 
Sonship by adoption................ 432 
Sonship by birth.................... 432 
Soteriolopy Wiis... ee 355 
Soul, Immortality of the........ 595 
Souls, Origin ote.t ae 290 
Theory of preexistence........ 290 
Theory of creationism............ 291 
Theory of traducianism........ 292 
Sources of theology..............--.... 30 
Speneer, Herbert. e eee 78 
The Knowledge of God........ 179 
Watch argument...2 ee 68 
Spiritual gifts.......... Lone . 473 
Spontaneous generation of life 83 
Sprinkling as baptism............... 567 
Strong, inspiration......._............ 172 
~ Realistic mode theory............ 343 
Sully, James, on evolution........ 244 
Supper, vine Mbord ’sin24. ee 576 
A Christian ordinance............ 576 
Method of observanee............ 577 
Purpose of the Supper........ 579 
Erroneous Vi@WS......--...-..-..----- 580 


Systematic theology defined.... 26 
Systematization of theology.... 35 


it 


Teleological Argument for 


ED OLSTGPL cece keg ete eee 56 
Terminology of theology............ 37 
Tertullian, foot-washing............ 583 
Theis. 2 ee ee 43 
Theodicy, Problem ‘ofi.st-2. 200 
Theology, Definition of.............. 25 

Contents" Oi ne Aaa 25 

deat): oft hao ea ee 25 

Religion An. iceistscers tree 25 

Main Divisions of.................... 25 

Other designating terms 

used.” ‘with!..\ 2a. eee 26 

Uses of term as to extent... 2 

HWxegetical .t7.2:.6o eee 25 

Historical, s..c:ad.e eee 25 

Systemation idici tee ee 26 

Practical, tort se eee oan HO 

Natural iyi oon ees 26 

Revealed’ 3) Aa) ea oer 27 

Dogmatics 50:2 iene ae 27 

Biblical y-ut-c en eee aoe 27 

Importanee)ofsoe see 27 

Sources! ofan ee 30 

Mothod ofvsneinte Ccyare 34 

Qualifications for the study 

OT Mate paetpetestaes ie ct Ni sae 37 
‘Theology proper... :....-ci snakes 179 
‘Thompsons William. [see 83 
Tongues eGift: of. aeee 476 


Nature of New Testament 


INDEX 


Page 
pq) EE, | Sea Cae Se 477 
Purpose of speaking in 
BOO TIOR EY caaegereseecbep sere shnlecaaress 478 
Postapostolic speaking in 
LETTE CU pol ate aly ANE ep: dE 480 
Not evidence of Holy Spirit 
jac Seyi toy es Ve Bee Obemiacmns ie ope 482 
Proper attitude toward 
PRYSEOTIGR acca tee eee Seace cae 484 
Shih s WES) a1 eh ig hr geoeen Beeoeebuewneren ere 331 
Tyndall on matter............... 82, 89 
Traducianism, Theory of........ 292 
Transmission of depravity, 

DEGCUOU GL ACD GR eet css teceos 339 
Transubstantiation ................-... 580 
Tribulation, No great................ 628 
Trichotomy, Theory of............ 285 
{lg hitc Cp kei iss 2g Wig ey uh Beeman aimee 569 
Pv Vices i) RhoA bite te CER Rae ale 205 

Biblical elements of the doc- 

[7 eV) Nia ae nets ee sm ana aed 206 

The doctrine in early church 

BVA OIAD stents tee cen ones ea 207 

The doctrine stated............... 210 

Mystery of the Trinity........ 211 

Bible proofs of the Trinity.... 212 


U 
Uneonditional benefits of the 
Part OTs Gita, eke yeast See soy 
Individual existeneée................ 
Possibility of universal sal- 
WAL OTPee me ee kee an: 
Salvation for those dying in 


673 

IDLANOY 8 paeestveneentee aera erent 394 
Power requisite for probation 396 
Unity of the human race........ 274 
Antiquity of the race............ 274 


Race distinctions and unity 277 


Physiological argument.......... 279 
Psychological argument........ 281 
Philological argument............ 281 
Biblical argument................... 282 
Unity off the Scriptures........ 148 
Universality of opportunity 
TODLPRS Ve tIO Iie ect nn 401 
Christ died for all men........ 402 
Salvation is for all men........ 403 


The gospel is to be preached 
ATEN Fiat at AEE a 2s aa 404 
God wills the salvation of all 404 
Universality of the idea of 


LC Zao Ne enh ae UNS We ALR. Meet cdo 45 
Universe as an effect................ 55 
Virgin birth y Of (Christ... 9... 361 

W 
Walker, tendency to unity........ 549 
Wrashin ofoto ft GGtiee ete sc. ccuwere 583 
Westminster Confession, pre- 

destination. eee aaa 407 
Will,’ Freedom of the..../..1...- 305 
Winchell on creation................ 243 
Witness of the Spirit................ 433 
Works) Of wd 35.020 4 hie i 231 
World.) End ole thea. 648 
Wright, George Frederick, on 

GVOlUtION MENCOTVic ee 248 





INDEX 


of 
SCRIPTURE TEXT CITED 
Chap. Verse Page | Chap. Verse » Page | Chap. Verse Page 
GENESIS B Ora me ee ae ya LOGIT OP ee 194 
ea le a DOS Nao Aan we ie ce ay GO uihte FUR ele ey 578 
1 et «7 A 231, 233 ROOT Ere Moen ee 227 
ed, SO a 241 JUDGES pra ja beagle 190 
5 hh Botha CO res} hal bP 29 Wy, ele ae BS TM puatam ol GO. Way eee re 258 
1 yay ek ae tel 300 TARR beh iere 193 
iO CYe Gaded Peery a aie 273 1 SAMUEL 
| ots By WAT Pm ane le SOF 9540 4h ee 587 PROVERBS 
iy pees Berea ted COG W204i re en SSO nae ge an at 192 
Lastest ee 315 
EE GIR aa A ae Ra 241 2 SAMUEL ECCLESIASTES 
OY faba EN iata a O04 11 Saree eel ae, SEW ad fae toMy ie yikiiee Seen ae 288 
Ces Pan, 294 PAN ao Ruut Cai Nae 446 
Lymer see a. 3) 318 1 KINGS eed ie Oe 315 
bad BBY oe a RR BUCH TAn Ws Ul yeh ues PAGE ps ok Lanccs eerrepeete ct ccl co. 333 
EPPS te tle ie BA Se 204 b ODOR SAP rg) lees ACs Sadie erences cee 284 
Cay eet Wh 333 bi EU Nye aa ae 291 
eh EO) Go 4 55 eee 333 2 KINGS 
L025 tS eh. 8 PRA a eet i an i 558 ISATAH 
Ghai ISSN gina eT ieee ins A 631 
os oe es DOM ulbr vouuey Fon oe Dd id gout nea hy 631 
ee ht ae 587 ORR ASO NN 265 
Lie) Sy ae 587 Me Stared ad Gd te ew See LATED 194 
cn OES ae a 265 | 926 nnn eceeeeeseeeeeeeeees BOO Get Sage die ui 227 
oT Aaa 587 Te Teh tae Be mei ae 362 
8 Uda fa 587 JOB DG Be 218, 529 
ied bo need 275 | Wath eee SOOO Gii7 ee eae 137 
CTO me te ON G01 | LAA ones SOU G2 Goze woe ed 616 
14:12 eee Ooi] O Via eum 179, 631 
EXODUS V5 215 on eeeeeeeeeeeeene SOUL TG Ours Wee 631 
Sea ee antes bh 187 | 88:4°7 eee SOBs) O] AMR Y Wo NIG 558 
TEE GS GMs a nee od 219 BB ST dane OM el 631 
OA Seba 194 PSALMS Bly Oduye see 489 
Ba Ge Te. Bs aE? agit CuO ae cee DOTIRAD Sue ae Li Nes 219 
4p FELON Gy SI RE oe POM ois Son tiene esc Pht Str (hee dia eft satire We OMRANEN Saleen 631 
OV ew GH 4ee Ome ny iaiees 193 
LEVITICUS CPPS ea Ey CUR sg LOA EAS BARA Me AM SN 184 
op yc Ss eee RR DA ORNS aa Bie Gea e eee ae a 184 
nehy eu te 14 4b Sar reno en aa oe BOua Pas OMe tea Ve 196 
Vy ibe asd SO0 Bs OelO nt OHS EG Mt 648 
valk | othe ee a ee SRS Be: 3 hc eee eee rtd} | RAM bm emeaenle 139 
FY RVG ee Oe Mae ete b Bap Re 4 cape Bete OR 492 
NUMBERS BUS ae ee ten eee SEE Ey al Estee ee 187 
VE Set gels O08 belie tees eee S50N. 66220) 28.5) usd 627 
Peps beats Sa Me TSH DS ee oak ere 334 
BGs Gash eee iar 175 JEREMIAH 
DEUTERONOMY | |.67:;7 teddies BO LAL: Dita talon 333 
BOSAL ie.” 184 | 69:18:95 Yo Tighe He 6.6 cones: 219 
Asad Career 134:|) BOs eae ey ee BOG ao Ore west eee 429 
10e ks ie 176 | 00:24 Cee ee TST esos OA a 190 
OR ph ual.) a 419 |\.102;95) 26 2c 648 | 31:31, 33, 34.......... 227 
SES AT cEbSs © cteeex as esses i Ro ]o oo Pa AS Bea Fe: te Se A A 24 RN by ae Se a 188 


676 
Chap. Verse Page 
EZEKIEL 
LSA Gomeok cathe teenies 404 
Sad SE eetetch tot tae an 405 
Balt LO heehee 417 
UGS AO nh OO ule ness 425, 568 
BOZO, Payee ee 443 
co RPE iver Sint phat 627 
DANIEL 
PASS © STs La Boing oe 552 
PP LIT oerey Oni S eats Ne 615 
PAW fr: «Bae Minti els BIR ie 614 
PL Ree elena 264 
CS LOG Cee eee ee 284 
ELPA Be fen Sect a 552 
A EAL fe melt ica Soe 265 
egy fal Beh reine satrap tla 628 
D524 eee eos 169, 240 
Ue: Sep feels tk RE dash 138 
OWA fash 622, 639, 652 
HOSEA 
G28 Perera tee en eave 620 
ORC ene lillie BAW eg 348 
JOEL 
Apt RAE 2 BS Peat, 483 
MICAH 
FE f i nearest tg al ay A 139 
EY Pa pat Oe eg Vinson gid 284 
ZECHARIAH 
t DA Made se dae 284, 291 
1 Tipe ey Pry ear vewen 552, 638 
MALACHI 
Stl fl aeRO eh a 219 
BAVA Sh oP base ae Binh 186 
MATTHEW 
tA Hea satan Die ada 219 
thea Betas Le aU 276 
JOON WEL alk & Onee RRL: pe us 431 
nA BO enna eeed Seto 362 
p Beh Aik ON EA RAE Ee Ot 440 
AEDS Ge alae ey 2a a 218 
LEAN We ih ancalade A doen Ter G70 431 
5 ty Ap beg latin A dp ae 616 
Soba th We Ok Une Aare 570 
Bg ERDAS pL ele 0 466, 470 
cae Wy PAs A A er yo aLaat el 214 
AARNE rs eee utr ee hem 489 
BADa ecto. 382, 417 
pla pte bpyser ie ee SUN fy, 324 
RE impsieral eh fa 8s rs 8 447 
be CU teebet ndaa Zr gl 264 
Li op: awe ate] (PERE Fea fae 417 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


um 


Dot Ohy EOD cone 
25:31-46 ..223, 643, 
Bota Mack ecto 652, 
25:46 374, 657, 660, 
26s 25-30)! cesencecsecees 


Las1ece ye wane 493, 


at tee www ew eee re wwaneee 


Orbs Oe 
ise) 
ee) 


mewowwndre 


WARM WWRH HE 


~ DNB PH 
Anwmwon 
nN 
on 
ou) 
bt 
on 
“ 


weet e tener we cenaeewee 


Chap. Verse Page 
LS cvemester he nateecvascoed 447 
RAS § Yeh tae Shp Sg oe 0 380 
UR op be pee kc day? oN) 400 
te Ee Be eee onleaetee 227 
Vy yi ho ee are 655 
VRGSLUE ote LAA asa 561 
Weep AN ote ASS ee 416 
PTS Live Uadateceriicoeweenss 419 
RUNS AAS Peceecvstcsanc: 614, 616 
16:22; 23°... 599, 651 
Fe eee thet Lick ce ty tio nt 613 
MS hoy etek teh cad arcesagee 416 
BUTS, OO) Hibs ncncnes 294 
20:35, 36 .263, 641 
BOSS: (| Seta a ecotdes 599 
PITT: AU Saale Meats 137 
Al ae ee © a, Se ee 648 
rep Od DAEs BAP eMnele co hea 577 
erg BUI Be AEs 576 
BOGS 3 esd Ri nasee eet acter news 599 
ALOU, Byceeeccsactons- 294, 358 
ci SN) AR Eee 246 
rile BE LUD Se mee 467 
JOHN 

Li Qh) 62h 2 Aa EE 220 
sa ie 216, 220, 222 
a A ee C8 eee 359 
tn he eee B96, 416 
LLC RR Rieti 222 
‘PA bs Se eee 433, 468 
vA 6a Siegel ER 171 
NERO «aE eae ee 388 
Ae Hy aN SS ar eS 246 
BRE Oo epee eat seteen es sorte 336 
BD e feasts Spt aac 424 
i he eee 227, 510, 614 
AEG RE Sips Syne Soma anes 221 
BEL aes actoenssct 377 
cs ae) ae a RES 602 
Re LO Me. tess ceeieasocs 199, 399 
ULES Il jee en iaeaieae. 403 
Ba UO aL Ds GO b cxse-cuaee 605 
rea ht Se RR 399, 574 
DP OW eesckstevsa-ee-r 414, 602 
4:24 . Secrest LOO 
Pie WAS ele eeteanderoeetsnonces 440 
Bye pes onenncerrce 223, 646 
SR ERS a) Sianeli 224 
Dea DD As saccoveranecent 624 
a Ce Suh are ame 223 
5:28, 29 ..622, 625, 630 

ne 639, 644, 652 
as 405 
AG Rae nate naee nt ne 246 
AUG hoe creer eumr kes: 625 
6:39, 40, 44, 54 .... 639 
Oe 2 ccs naniieeees 396 


INDEX 


Chap. Verse Page 
Ea Mil ge SKE Ann leg Aa) lL 9 581 
LTE ei tel er tea i a 440 
S554 BO Ae see 441 
eS GA Bon eee eee 613 
Police ge Ma) Salven DANE bags 4 SPA 321 
EDS BR ettice et ceatalte 219 
Tp be (mney 5 a eae me hes Boge 224 
TOS reece ee 221 
L027 S28 ae ee 602 
gor A Oe i a 413 
DEUS f5) 5 A Os Regen ee 167 
PDO Ree Aas 380 
ee Se eee eons Eo) 647 
gS Sp Uy eae 584, 585 
To toc Ome ene. 590 
TAO SU peter cedes caste 634 
VA Oe ae ae aise ee One 386 
14 81 Site ee isd 227, 493 
La TG hee rene raes 227 
14:17 457, 468, 469 
L418. eG wee ea bask 635 
i: 2924 0 Seek Pee Mahe s 207 
Vos L-Gae eee eee 463 
URAL ALS TCA 413 
BES Pps Pole Bn Sos ig lide BN 468 
Tome Uae ees 493 
Vea LO mr se 403, 410, 468 
Dos BOW ee 226, 229 
G's Uigigeccaseue svat: 214, 227 
Fy pyaar one 226 
Gs Zlieeerree eke 431 
LG 2S es. tem ae cece eee 493 
LG SOP eee etc. ute 221 
AS7 ie Olde seine. seam haere 207 
I by AA i ike Rink PE CE ae 468 
BIE Posy eh hes 4 akan el 3 468 
OTs LD Aen tomato 3 413 
AW SM le AN snares eee ak ad 458 
AWAD Did See Usa 548 
PAU EEA TIAN Mamet Bead bite hs 217 
AD AP Ay SLL ee 221 

ACTS 
1 Ee a ae 466, 468, 471 
Ve Wee eee ee 635 
Ties] Gaga re ea 176 
DADE Soe ck Bpkt nn abatsr' 176 
WP GT tees ta a 521 
12 lie st ER 521 
OF RS tos 4, eee a 477 
PI Os See eid ere haa ga, A 470 
2:4 466, 471, 478, 482 
PRAM ree Nees aT Ye: 476 
2:38 399, 416, 557, 467 

Eke ah 570, 574 
BIDS MVD Ma sec goes 571 
PTY Rp anche elute wa 465 
Dead AF otros Dome earn nears 578 


677 
Chap. Verse Page 
sea R! False die ae 416, 425 
reba p ge AS selena BE 471 
Op Beith clea line Meas OL 386 
CU Re eS I RE OEP 512 
AUS Utes erent seen 471 
SED 9s peepee moped Ps 227 
SIGE UE: | Lars oT Ss We al 227 
GSE A ei ra detvedat oie 512 
CO tog Non at RAMEE a ect 508 
CRIT Arsh Rte ok 5 Pope 224 
CAE! fe ELIS sas hah he 224 
Es AAee oa set 509 
oD rd Vitae AA ahaa 458 
aid bls Ural ata tra 469, 570 
BL OHO (ie sence are tre 464 
Sel Oe Bia woe 557, 570 
ET Bh (nea as ie a DE ae 458 
SEG K N belie Mb day an 509 
LO: 22022 De aac 458 
LO 244 LD yee 467 
LO SAB eee ne oe 482 
10344-4632 0S 477 
LO SAS aioe feaes cs: 557 
LO) 2.5 peewee Pie vere ee 570 
Dis Sel Oiies eee 468 
BLA bap AE sche teat de 467 
HL Ls Piven, cee eenr races 446 
DAE Re eiae 4 Penny Uae aA 522 
iste abehme eae yea RAD. 226 
Lh: Qet iy an ah ete 226, 529 
LSD elie Uae 472 
PS SOON ec ek tet ees 574 
LaATR eae ere Ae 631 
EAR Re Sires AP BN 479 
BE SSI peptone ot Fae 534 
Gs Seer ceric eect are 518 
BRT EY OY ty i nae ne doo tae 532 
TOSS ts Oaiteasscaceteece 458 
DG UL5 ere eee 572 
1G 51 OG rene 268 
1A Ps g EIR Ra els 399, 414 
LOsS 2734 te ei 560 
Ds oy" cts. 278, 282, 292 
1 TOS ee eal intel 2 8 190 
1 Vo)! A the bho ela 181 
4 OFA a Na Bethe 637, 643 
Nai re vn eet en td thy ee 570 
SURI oper pea 458 
LUBE! tse ieh ta ossicles 469 
he Oe ORIN cd atase se 467 
1B baas) pe ety MOB Ts ES) 570 
LO Oyo 464, 477, 482 
BR AN ie SS gst 270 
TO Ooewp Oia 508 
2d UA fe a 512, 577, 579 
B02 Lincs 512, 524, 532 
20228 ees s 218, 368, 383 


SUSR AAD. 525, 548 


ces) 


678 

Chap. Verse Page 
PANE Nt Babee ears LY 08 eat 522 
M&M) 8 aed Ny AE ST §22 
Bet AG ohh bo O74 
BE 1G. beets 626, 639 
PES LOA OMe bctaysde sce 574 
COL Sic sae ee 400, 458 
BOLBO | tiianeedee pete: 625 
BG SSO), Accekeec ean seers 227 

ROMANS 
6 Ort Fh MNS Ln 171 
Bp a erent ales BA 361 
ASLO Vaden ee eee 399 
Boa! Beard UN irae) art ha 397 
1 Wy fe pies AL ST a 179 
PIL So ieee pagnus ees 606, 647 
Pagal WEN Cs EP Ske tN 652 
AAG TY se Nein tah AR 419 
PA IE TAs 5 Np eels 397 
Rios Oo alerts 618 
TLRS AUIS Redae see aye BN 335 
REALE Up nob oe ceded bs 426 
ACA RD Bl Piers BO Siler po 445 
Bey Veda calee ee 335 
De ia Piecdn eaten is 426, 427 
ENDL, NEMS Sa AOS 383 
Bia oG) ee oe 385 
O20 We eae 381 
Gielen Nevebareehe ase unde 417 
rEg eens Beas PRET gf 399 
Aa Vel Oa ater ee 618 
7 NS Hs L ketal SAR Olea | 443 
cA Sy fap) Sot of GAL) AE A Oe 233 
MD Suh arti osteahcete 414, 437 
eS lacey 199, 377, 379 
SL ee ee 371, 381 
5:12 278, 283, 291, 349 
Ps. LMS uae ance 403 
fis Ore see 274, 422 
oe peepee ang! haat 0 pO 575 
OE PLE Mig YR EL A 294 
6:12, 14, 17, 18, 22, 441 
Cee 399, 602 
7:9 322, 323, 334, 602 
Tea. O8 (ete NNN 447 
Ufo Ha Sore ek ey Oeeeteaes San dale 426 
(EDR SM Maite AO A A 429 
nb Tonaeedes Buby 336, 429 
te Dy eae he Laie 230, 469 
A Pep PETS ike ee Hea Ee 294 
LATE Mw Fd CEN acti UD 432 
EAA Bae Le SOIREE OW 432 
Bra Gat 227, 434, 437 
tO elise ee Oe ae 227 
S220 80 “ae 410 
ROMANS 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


Chap. Verse Page 
Dds bye Ree eae e tame Sealy is 413 
G baud cannes 412 
bo 1s SL eee mee 406 
LOLS LS alceucecaregs! 423 
PLO OO Ae eee eg 413 
Ee OS Riba taba 473 
TET, Aeecal cide ea 523 
A Oy lecc ee, ee oe 643 
a WS He ie OP, Sot 324 
pA Ry he eee Sa A ps 613 
PO PaO ecesere ue sates 512 
MELO eee eee aes 548 
ALi ya 41) AR a ea 321 
I CORINTHIANS 
GDh poem eb 224, 509, 548 
120 LE Tee Re, eee hy. 548 
PAT BST Wyo eS Din et LEE 557 
ATAU weil Coniiaes o Li Peo te 
BO ae te es we 663 
PAPE Ai Ne Mi BRM Rs et 2 228 
pH! BIE iene edie ahi Sobay OF 284 
De Fal aca aees eee 547 
Binh O ee tassre a eeo are 227 
Sav I re Mr duit De Ede OC 389 
TER Host eee Bios cle es 512 
eat 22) Q1b pi ig HON) SORA 383 
pha Ieee alate Eh A 184 
2 ay bf USGA dea <a 521 
SIE MR ESS AEA I aches 413 
LO er dist weae tetas ee 562 
EOS yee Vee. eocaee ee 267 
OSG a tech ea ee 576, 577 
GAG ad He (pial Daas er RSS 580, 582 
TNO oe ee aera 579 
TE 20 eee ae 576, 577 
je Bad De poet iD Spe A 557 
AT O39 eee 576 
gE: SM OY Le 576, 577 
Te SG ihe see care 577 
A Ls RD Leathe nee le 512 
Tete UA ee 481 
12:4-11, 28-30........ 473 
Bb Bay Ai ena raha 476, 484 
oe Ook) eee oa res ee 493 
WBE Bis Pere by aE 476, 515 
B28 OS eee ran sae 515, 527 
gC TRA lane ak 483 
LAS 6-1 Oe eae ee 660 
BA CR: Daa. eh ob Vt CS 476, 483 
DATS ee eres 477 
A ey ae ie! Dare la Re A 478 
1 Sea ae iy Rind ee 480 
1400 4. ee ea 478 
TASS (Ree ee 479 
1AS1D yee 485 
14508 eS eee 486 
Vea Giy 2.5 dala coe 485 


Chap. Verse Page 
DSH 2S. | RuccetAne eee 486 
TAS BD fees eee 486 
SE pees Eee 485 
PERO jets cspiccibarctaeee 436 
11 hed De ei wi SS 640 
LG 2). stave eee 625 
pA hos TABS pe iter 640 
NUS 84) cece ee 441 
LOG ass eee 630 
1 Ea yt CSE he 509, 512 
LG Soothe 518 
NAG hm Bs Rm i bd A 572 


STLT, cope 185 
cara] OY argent) 395, 660 
OL. aid sdudaaseaens eee 434 
D1). 6, 8.30 ee 285 
36-8 oo ceacapkae eee 600 
5 Lae Peg BRM TIPE SS 628 
iG ld bee Lb hea 295 
Chou Qubemeue ce sce, 223, 606 
pd Ea poieer eo nee ase 402 
at A fa oleh Sse Seem CS 425 
OV LS Lee ee 381 
BSL 0,2 aes ree 382 
TAL ieee ee ee ee 512 
VOLO ae a eee 416 
Ss Oe Nk eee 512 
BO Oe ee 518 
fare eee PALS 7 285 
L325 oe 224 
Ab ne tetis, 213, 226 
GALATIANS 
109 eee Bt 55-0 / 515, 521 
Vell 202s eee 521 
a a Alp oe Bake te pelt oh 625 
PAOg Ra teyvonme fe to 8 fo 334 
BO eee ee 335 
be ese da le 335 
GS DEY | Gow \ceedectnasecdeneeee 432 
TAL ener lied Ns Th 618 
At eA eceeee 432 
466) el ae ee 432 
Ge OR ee eed 171 
EPHESIANS 
aA PR tae Ss Rea he a 411 
1217) Ceeee Ata 383 
Tt 20 atte 03, 508, 529 
AE Epp 6, ieee teem | 425, 623 
PAS Le SAMRAT 8 334 
PSST ei lecuitedesinkecueae 414 
so ee §29 
ec ee 215 
BROS | occiine tee tear 432 
op de Ray A's Wate hese we GLE 


INDEX 679 


Chap. Verse Page | Chap. Verse Page | Chap. Verse Page 
CN id | baa Mee HOB P2sGe ee te Pe Oe Ee frog: Beene ancien 388 
ALO hha peter OL) Whe stig Cave tecberebte tot cartels BOO heya oe Seek es, 458, 460 
A 1k vn SO Seen 548 22 Oar eecoetl $7 8, AOS. O 228 Ves 378, 634 
Tet Pane een AUS Oa Ly ae recnmaatasentttshvbns Dyes LO Sierra ees 388, 458 
RST retrace §22, 523, 525 | 3:1-18. .............. Dole G82 AOL Ot akan 423, 627 
Ue EON bee aes ees OAL) thstbie stderr cadeh sear sted BEG tN Lass isda eee 464 
BS Prk te ob cab geotesanectentnne DUT) 12; i's Oilseed te saecute teescse POG) PLU Close ts ston nee 227 
BPAY hander rinte ssh oe De AYO HOS been cd tolses Deu yind 528 | 10:19-22.......4....424, 459 
WOR LO cc rennuiee aacnvae ANGI De be este S50 ONO) DLE LOO cee oe erelt, 568 
eee ee Sane se cekuate #59 )1) Bocce Bee COU! BLOT BO ies. c. caer tastes 512 
Sa RSIS A fe alin wages ances DUS Ak Mae el ahold eS: SUSE Ri 74742) Reda ial oad ae 227 
Tobe Bs acter 2 is Loh td OLE Ba! aged tora Be 601 
PHILIPPIANS SST) teases meat ciere DSB OU ike ON ilantocee ake 185, 291 
tele PIA a ARM ae Bay la te Da G12 8Oa0) atl weenie tee oe 413 
523, 524, 525, 532 RON CRae ai eacpie GOs oe 513 
shasta SOU Se uae MAS 413 2 TIMOTHY 12 Oy ch eee 2s 
Dee fae eee OOS iy Daun mysctessdtrvosh tebe: 413 | 12:24 ..... PGMS, SAK 5 568 
RES | Aare. ese ain PAST AUG ae Lida Lael he LABOR ot Dera 1S 2 leben! pts eA 660 
i Fp. 8 7 Be inoveaeae ann BOO Os LOpeet unr. ila epee WAM YUM a Renae ilies coco app 529 
UE NOEs he 2: Sida SLC UR a ate Be AY A BLO Odeentet ase 186, 220, 657 
Bis Oise ere lags eclats BO: (PLES seo tetere: Mids Ae Hes eo Ps COUN a LTA ac ake tl 512 
CY Gee Sea 369 
PRS i SE 423 TITUS JAMES 
a eee a G345 050 405) Cras tenner eom epi et as Bech gC A a 186 
See 8 Oh he ene BOON BLAG 1 1h tees eed) ME tee eee ad coe 417 
7 UE, 3: AE eee PAT Sa i PME AMER Ei ee Pepa ie ee (POs Cie ee) onl 532 
OU eae, 396, 442 | 5:14, 15....494, 496, 499 
COLOSSIANS PAN Bs Vek elle ind Mae ees 28 636 
po Bec a aR LG et Bae st wo mueete ct 424 1 PETER 
4725 ELS a ped Ye) ied 010 Sos Fe 9 et EP LEE 8 rt WU Meare eit 215, 410, 568 
DTG ara vio) dike 223 Pio nes cee bee 400, 413 
EASE tee .. 908 HEBREWS BR We apd a abel RE 264 
gaa 2 a Re Gop Poke eee cut ns Jity Gols lee LG ose es 195 
LJ py Baad fem uae Oo 1g e387 058 il LAM omens weenie 383 
cs be i Ole Re ata OBL Ot etsntcda ted eewgeds CAT WAL OW erie ae iier nina 388 
Ry ig eer ee ADSL Lieto 262, 263,294) 1:23 20 424, 430, 468 
3:10 AUST) UE RCL. A SEIN Parte A eS PRM RY RAYS 9, si 2 RA Gea mae eat 513 
Se DEES ins eal, ine BN Tab rae ds iat serene: 441 
TP eA LON TANS eb 10 ree PON ear cai) Vaan eeastho GMOs tea 524 
“PSI Ae Ee RSS nett AAT hs Lee ca. eee iste ace DOO hee ee erst ese tee 379 
of it Oo Rae, Mela eb ata Lee2 Meee Maia > WARN ee GUD7 | Moe Be Ong setae ame 606 
LE Eb a RIS 636 | 2:2 Li e019 8) ass ad Ri nat peu Sen ee 575 
* 0a Ne a edn Pe Or YL, pene enema COs 4S caine ae an. 607 
Baten, 654, .050,.040 1) os (he coe he a lioceee BOA) Oat aoe ee ee 525 
SCO es eae! BS Tete O a hes Peck reece ceed Pea Oog ho sd Lal eat ne ee 524 
2:9....377, 379, 394, 402 
Pre BOA LONTANS [5221 au Cs ee. ai 508 2 PETER 
NSA 1 LD OS Deane ted Seg OE: Pe te oe Sa Hats tis (00 a be gl HLS ee Oe Ao Sa 413 
1h thy oe Sa Ree aS AM ge) Brite aaah A oe rie WA FANN Bah YS ope lal aR ek 285 
TCL RIG AA ie ta GSAS G57 | AcdBuee eee ae LOS EAL ee 167, 171, 228 
os es B36 O38 N71 Oi (trata cet cane CAS PN dae Wk SOM pe ees 540 
ee EYES Se oe G29! 822 Mee ean AO alan? eka asal ere sesak 266, 646 
“IS VRSER SN lia ALO SD eee BSS 408 wor ese tet. Ue week Sc) 643 
TURD: Sak Sie a ae S15 eB Se eee eke: Dasara LO ie a fa 649 
SL Pees ene ee aa Poa ede) Oh, ink ieee 630 
1 TIMOTHY ES! Pea ede BOS ANS, AO gh es ROLLE cisudcsspccsceayen ces 649 
AE Wg yak itr aE Hi USWA ELD bay gi We Qaeda ra SW po ACY Maer Smee seeds Ae 652 
fT a SRR Re Bx) 405 | 9:14... Po SP PAL MSO 4 SU RASTA Zee 637 


680 CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 


En bi peat ee ieee s ONe G31) (Gd coerce te tee 602, | <3). koe eee 544 
Seth Cees VOR G7 MGsIn tide, 450) 449, | 1311-14 oe 552 
SEO Ma Akaka eo 434i 1309) J Seen 623 
1 JOHN 19:3) ;4 020 ee 622 
TEESE 360 2 JOHN 19:5) 2 Oe 623 
VAG Wet lexae err BG BRON Sayan ian eventing BoA De (sien eee 321 
TEA CORES, Jean 428 18714") ore 546 
DED ied eo ee gers 430 3 JOHN Et A eae ores | 501 
eT hots AEE 441 |, og 14:11 ee 654 
PEE htie SST WAOOM ANS he Mare teres Td TD Ta \ eee ee 196 
DAU Sa ey eet 442 17-102 eae 622, 623 
CYL Ge men Date 629 toe 17:10)/12) chee ” 618 
B200 PRC Rae 430) | 6. ------------neeeeeeenereceeees 266.) 7821-4) 552 
Ee tay Heme Oe 432 | 13 -.--2-----esceceeseeneecee GOS 1951) on eee 660 
2S Gyre ape le 449, 19:6 ee 188 
Ie can Reece a AS OP 441 REVELATION 191116 ies ioe 622 
STi oth BLAS NG ASDF ASI i Spee wuse---B78, 574 | 20:1-6........621, 624, 625 
Fae Mea G24 18 AAA Bel eerie ee ea yen 6854 (20:9 -22 er is 321, 623 
Acosta fy Ae B29 OBGE eee 9201 90+11) -.acuereeee 649 
A SAY ea ASA O10 naan ae ves G16) 20.1115: oe 626, 645 
eg Berets usenet 480 843 74|61020 seenne eee 618) 120719013. eee 644 
AS BE. Lisa rotadvencaesteaetie LOOT Ba Ode torres cereo en eres ss 635/197 Paute es ae 649 
ABEL te eine teeteeeeed SS LAV TL ONee eee woe 413 
FAST: Sie Cinco ANE Th PEERY ipa ean en) g23 | 21:3 eiho 
aah cane ae a 43045740 (Ge O0 ine ee eee 988 | 21:4 -------neeeeceeeeenee 662 
Tar IA WO ALN OTA T Tac ee ae 5740 (21:8 ote 654 


# ha) 
Le aa nit 


bf 
Vi iebiy 9 


i f 
im! 


ar A wl 


eS 
es ; 
Pele hole 


he iy i 
rt 7 hit 





Date Due 





“A rs 


JY 30°53 a 
FEB 1 8°57 























— tes — rte 





qe 




































































(GI "4 
iy 744 


eewa. 4 


gee 
Wis iy 
i 


ty 








